How come...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

How is asking you to read your own link an insult? And why do you need to constantly be telling yourself you think you're somehow winning an argument?

Well, for starters, you are implying that I didn't read it. Here it is, an exact quote...it's not very complex or ambiguous.

"a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

She is saying that the experience of being a white man, somehow leaves one less qualified to render quality legal opinions, than one who is Latina and female (all other things being equal, I suppose).

It's racist. It's sexist. And it's absurdly stupid. I know it's stupid, because I don't see white, male, Georgetown Law School graduates risking their lives to float on rafts to emigrate to Latino nations, in search of "that life", which according to this dolt, would instantly make them superior jurists.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Well, for starters, you are implying that I didn't read it.

Had you read it you would likely have had an understanding of her intent.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Had you read it you would likely have had an understanding of her intent.

Oh, I see! We should ignore what people actually say, and focus on their likely intent! And who determines the intent of what everyone says? Liberals!!

Let's re-state your handiwork on this post, in terms of gauging "intent".

"Trump's insinuation was that his heritage would compromise his ability to uphold the law"

So even though Trump never explicitly said as much, you are able to determine that his insinuation, or "intent" was racist. His statement isn't racist. But you are able to conclude that his intent is racist.

Sotomayor, on the other hand, comes right out and says that in terms of judicial ability female Latinas are superior to white males. That is textbook racism. Fortunately for her, you can see past that to her "intent", which even though you chose not to share it, was certainly something worthy of a Nobel Prize.

In other words, according to you, (1) conservatives are racist even when they are not, and (2) liberals aren't racist, even when they are.

Cue the 'Twilight Zone' music...

[spence]

You still haven't read your own link have you...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You still haven't read your own link have you...

She also belonged to a group called, in Spanish, "The Race". Again, they don't call themselves "A" Race or, "One Race Of Many". No, no, they are "the" race.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Racism

1
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2
: racial prejudice or discrimination

I bounce trumps comments against the definition in Miriam Webster and it doesn't pass the smell test....he maybe a crass a-hole

Now I bounce Sotamayors comments against it and.....if it walks like a duck.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Had you read it you would likely have had an understanding of her intent.

Spence, in that link, the quote is what we KNOW she said. The rest of the link, was the self-serving liberal spin, from a liberal drone, telling me why she didn't mean what she said. If I used another link, written by Glenn Beck, explaining why that quote makes her unfit for night court let alone SCOTUS, would you buy into that?

We all know what she said. Try to spin it any way you want. Those words aren't open to a lot of different interpretations. I chose a liberal link, because if I chose The Blaze, you might have claimed they were making it up.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

She also belonged to a group called, in Spanish, "The Race". Again, they don't call themselves "A" Race or, "One Race Of Many". No, no, they are "the" race.

Well, that's not really true either. It also means the people or the community.

"The phrase "La Raza" is actually truncated from "La Raza Cósmica," a phrase coined by politician and philosopher José Vasconcelos (also a former secretary of education and 1929 presidential candidate in Mexico) to describe the ideology that the mixture of ethnicities in the New World ushered in a new era of humanity characterized by love and inclusivity."

I do believe it was adopted frequently this century to promote Latino civil rights. But to assume the use of the word "la" indicates superiority...shows you really don't understand how to address a feminine noun.

[Jim in CT]

From the link...

"The purpose of the speech, she said, was to "talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench."

Spence, if she said "I believe my experience as a Latina female gives me a good foundation upon which to judge fairly", NO ONE would have a problem with that. That's not what she said. She didn't just celebrate her own heritage. She said, with no abiguity, that her heritage (and gender) are superior to that of a white man.

If she made that same exact statement during questioning for jury duty, she would be rightly excluded. She's unfit to serve on a jury, but there she is on SCOTUS. Thanks to your hero.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, that's not really true either. It also means the people or the community.

"The phrase "La Raza" is actually truncated from "La Raza Cósmica," a phrase coined by politician and philosopher José Vasconcelos (also a former secretary of education and 1929 presidential candidate in Mexico) to describe the ideology that the mixture of ethnicities in the New World ushered in a new era of humanity characterized by love and inclusivity."

I do believe it was adopted frequently this century to promote Latino civil rights. But to assume the use of the word "la" indicates superiority...shows you really don't understand how to address a feminine noun.

http://www.spanishcentral.com/translate/raza

"I do believe it The Klan was adopted frequently this century to promote Latino white civil rights"

See what I did there?

How about we stop talking about things that don't matter (race and gender), and we judge people by what they actually say and do? why is that beyond the grasp of liberals? Answer - because what liberals say and do is indefensible (let's let Willie Horton use the girls room if he claims to identify as such), demonstrably false (if we tweak taxes on the 1%, we can balance our budget), and in some cases (abortion), practically Satanic.

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Now I bounce Sotamayors comments against it and.....if it walks like a duck.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You should read Jim's link as well. He's having a terrible time understanding that words can have different meaning when used in different contexts.

[wdmso]

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You should read Jim's like as well. He's having a terrible time understanding that words can have different meaning when used in different contexts.

"a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

OK, let's make this simple. I read that quote, and I conclude that she thinks that female Latinas, are superior to white men (in terms of rendering legal conclusions).

What other meaning can there possibly be, to that quote?

Again, instead of insulting me, tell me where I am wrong, please?

[spence]

Read your own link Jim. Are you like afraid?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Read your own link Jim. Are you like afraid?

I read one Kool Aid drinking jerk's explanation. I don't know why he, or you, know how she meant something other than what was said. You have no alternative explanation, but Lord knows you cannot criticize her, so we'll leave it at that.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I read one Kool Aid drinking jerk's explanation.

that's it...release your inner Trump!

[Jim in CT]

Spence, here is what the author said...

"it (her speech)amounted to little more than Sotomayor acknowledging that judges, like anyone, are products of where and how they grew up. "

That's pure bullsh*t. She didn't just say that she is the product of her heritage. She said that her heritage produces a superior jurist than a white man's heritage. Those are 2 very different things to say.

(1) I am white, therefore I am superior to blacks.
(2) I am white, and therefore I have a life experience that contributes to who I am.

Spence, you see no distinction between those 2 statements? They are the same to you? Because that's exactly how the author explains what she said. It's ridiculous.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

Had you read it you would likely have had an understanding of her intent.

Everything was going well until you spouted this stupidity. Did your children steal your password Jeff, wife perhaps?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If Trump is saying that naturally born citizens of Mexican heritage are not real Americans, that would be racist.

Why would it be racist, Jim? Is "real American" a race? Is "Mexican" a race? Would saying something that has nothing to do with race be racist?

There are white Mexicans. There are black Mexicans. There are yellow Mexicans. There are red Mexicans. And there are mixtures of these type of Mexicans. The U.S. also has white, black, yellow, and red Americans, and mixtures of those types. So if Mexican and American are races, are they the same race? It would seem so. The same can be said of all North and South American countries and Most European countries. Apparently, if the name of those countries is a race, the members of those countries must all belong to the same race. One might generalize and call it the human race

If you say something negative about someone who is of the same race as you, would that be racist?

On the other hand, if by race we mean human groups with common genetic markers which meaningfully differentiate from those genetic markers of other human groups, then the name of countries used as racial types is ridiculous. And, indeed in that case, a given American can be a racist in regard to another American.

And, as well, a given Mexican can be a racist in regard to another Mexican. And, indeed, in the social hierarchy of Mexico, there is a preference for whiteness and a racial discrimination against "the other," as per Wikipedia: "An important phenomenon described for some parts of Latin America such as Brazil and Mexico is "Whitening" or "Mestizaje" describing the policy of planned racial mixing with the purpose of minimizing the non-white part of the population." Mexicans can be quite racist, even, and especially, toward other Mexicans and Latin Americans. It is a Mexican policy not to allow "undocumented" immigrants to stay in Mexico. That was egregiously demonstrated when they wouldn't let the famous thousands of unaccompanied children from Honduras and Guatemala who crossed into Mexico stay there, but put them on trains to the U.S. border, dropping them there to enter this country. And that action was strongly supported by all those innocent Latino and Mexican organizations such as those in the Washington Post article that Spence posted. And those "non-political" organizations did not criticize Mexico for not helping the unaccompanied Latino children. Nor did they demand that Mexico should even take its "share." But they helped facilitate the immigration of those children into this country. And they condemned Americans who objected to keeping the children which in turn would necessitate bringing in the parents and families of those thousands of children who would all then be destined for citizenship. No, of course not . . . those various Mexican and Latino organizations had no ulterior racial or ethnic motivation in "helping" those children and their families, nor in helping all the other millions of their "race" (actually ethnicity) do well in this country. Even if it would be at the expense of other Americans. And, certainly, no one belonging to any of those apolitical, beneficent, non-discriminatory, organizations would have any bias against someone like Trump who says he wants to BUILD A FRIGGING WALL between Mexico and the U.S. And who has said things about some of their fellow ethnics which they have strongly condemned.

Anyway, Trump did not refer to a race. He referred to an ethnicity, and an ethnic heritage, in which a member of it might well be biased against him because of his statements regarding that ethnicity--NOT REGARDING ANY "RACE."

[wdmso]

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, appointed Curiel in 2006 to the state superior court, where he spent six years before ascending to the federal court.
Schwarzenegger affirmed his support for Curiel on Monday tweeting: "Judge Curiel is an American hero who stood up to the Mexican cartels. I was proud to appoint him when I was Gov."

Trump Defender Representative Duncan Hunter

What I like to do is take these arguments out to there logical extremes. So let’s say that Chris Kyle, the American sniper, is still alive and he was on trial for something, and his judge was a Muslim-American of Iraqi descent. Here you have Chris Kyle, who’s killed a whole bunch of bad guys in Iraq. Would that be a fair trial for Chris Kyle? If you had that judge there? Probably not. And Chris Kyle could probably say, “this guy’s not gonna like me.”

from the author.. Moreover, Sotomayor’s point rather plainly was that ethnic minorities who enter the legal profession—intelligent people with diversity of experience—will have a wider range of understanding than their more cloistered peers, and that will aide their judgment. It was not to say that white judges, by virtue of their whiteness, are incapable of standing in judgment of certain minorities impartially.

newrepublic.com/article/134110/annotated-guide-republicans-defenses-trumps-mexican-judge-comments

this seem to following the same old pattern

[buckman]

30!+ years Trump has been in the public eye .... Never once has he been accused as a racist .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

LMAO!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Everything was going well until you spouted this stupidity. Did your children steal your password Jeff, wife perhaps?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Huh?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, appointed Curiel in 2006 to the state superior court, where he spent six years before ascending to the federal court.
Schwarzenegger affirmed his support for Curiel on Monday tweeting: "Judge Curiel is an American hero who stood up to the Mexican cartels. I was proud to appoint him when I was Gov."

Schwarzenegger is a Progressive "Republican" not a conservative one. He is a poor choice to represent the opposite side of the aisle. And even Reagan appointed judges who turned out to be less than he hoped.

As far as standing up to the Mexican cartels, Mexico is also fighting the Mexican cartels. How is fighting the Mexican cartels proof that Curiel would not have a bias against Trump for his comments and his Wall promise? Posing the Mexican cartels as a representative of Mexico or of being Mexican is an insult to Mexico and Mexicans. Oh . . . wait, only Trump has offended Mexicans. If Curiel has publicly commented on Trumps supposedly anti-Mexican rants it might clarify what his bias would be or not be. If he hasn't, then only he knows. He might well agree with Trump and support the Wall. If Trump knew that, he might be perfectly happy to have Curiel as the presiding judge. Of course, if everybody knew that to be true, then the plaintiffs against Trump would have an argument for Curiel to recuse himself. Or, if that pro-Trump bias were known, Curiel would not have been appointed to the case in the first place. But if Trump doesn't know how Curiel truly feels about him, and Trump may feel that the judge was appointed specifically because of his Latino heritage in order to make Trumps defense more difficult, then bashing Trump for stating his fears and, furthermore, calling it "racist" when it isn't is not only way overboard, but it gives the bashing a huge taint of politics.

Trump Defender Representative Duncan Hunter

What I like to do is take these arguments out to there logical extremes. So let’s say that Chris Kyle, the American sniper, is still alive and he was on trial for something, and his judge was a Muslim-American of Iraqi descent. Here you have Chris Kyle, who’s killed a whole bunch of bad guys in Iraq. Would that be a fair trial for Chris Kyle? If you had that judge there? Probably not. And Chris Kyle could probably say, “this guy’s not gonna like me.”

Sounds reasonable, if such a scenario existed.

from the author.. Moreover, Sotomayor’s point rather plainly was that ethnic minorities who enter the legal profession—intelligent people with diversity of experience—will have a wider range of understanding than their more cloistered peers, and that will aide their judgment.

If that's Sotomayor's point, she's comparing apples to oranges. I mean, come on, "intelligent" ethnic minorities "with diversity of experience" versus "more cloistered peers"? Wouldn't a relevant comparison be" intelligent" ethnic minorities with "diversity of experience" versus "intelligent" peers with "diversity of experience"? Then there's "more cloistered ethnic minorities" versus "more cloistered peers." Or how about "more cloistered" ethnic minorities versus "intelligent" peers with "diversity of experience"? It's the same old pattern of progressive word play to suit situational ethics.

And having having a diversity of experience does not give you a wider range of understanding the law. The law is not dependent on the diversity of your experience. That diversity may even cloud your judgment depending on what that diversity entails. It may influence you to allow those experiences, favorable or unfavorable, to bend toward one over another. Justice is supposed to be "blind." A diversity of experience can enrich your life, but it may open your eyes in ways that abort justice.

It was not to say that white judges, by virtue of their whiteness, are incapable of standing in judgment of certain minorities impartially.

It's saying that they are less capable of doing so. Of course, if they're "more cloistered," and not "intelligent," they are probably incapable.

newrepublic.com/article/134110/annotated-guide-republicans-defenses-trumps-mexican-judge-comments

And, the New Republic is a far left publication, often Marxist in point of view. It's articles would be expected to support ethnic minorities over white capitalists.

this seem to following the same old pattern

Yup, the same old pattern of throwing out the red meat of "racism." That's my main objection. I don't know if Trump University was a scam. I think the Republican establishment wishes that it had already been legally established as one so that Trump would not be the nominee.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

30!+ years Trump has been in the public eye .... Never once has he been accused as a racist .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Aside from the lawsuits and books detailing his racist remarks and actions.

http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald...racism-quotes/

Even that's moot though, his behavior during the campaign seems to be evidence enough for the last GOP nominee, House and Senate leadership etc... etc...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Aside from the lawsuits and books detailing his racist remarks and actions.

http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald...racism-quotes/

Calling Mexicans (obviously not all Mexicans but referring to some of the illegal immigrants) rapists is not a reference to race. Again, Mexican is not a race. Mexico is comprised of a fairly universal spectrum of races. Donald shoots off at the mouth extemporaneously rather than from a well crafted prepared script which would be more careful and precise about to whom he is referring. Most people, if they're honest, would understand who he was talking about.

Proposing a temporary ban on Muslims is not a reference to race. Muslim is not a race.

Calling a black man "my African American," unless you're hyper sensitivity makes it so, is not a derogatory remark about blacks.

Not renting to blacks could be racist--unless you're just following daddy's orders. It also might be more economically based than on race per se.

Having the opinion, right or wrong, that a well-educated black has a tremendous advantage over a well-educated white in terms of the job market is not a denigration of blacks. And it's certainly no more "racist" than saying a well-educated white has a tremendous advantage over a well-educated black.

The quote in the O'Donnell book could be racist, or it could be that "the only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes", which would exclude most other ethnicities and races including most white men from being those he wanted counting his money. It's kind of a funny statement if you're not too sensitive. Chris Rock could get away with saying it and get a laugh. And even though the "Besides that" portion of the quote is racist, he now denies saying it.

And Trump has several "important" people who say he is not a racist.

Dredging up old stuff that is not actually racist but casting it as so, smacks of desperation. And it offends millions who are tired of calling everything racism. Those who are adamantly opposed to trump, and want to believe anything negative about him, will eat up the examples in the article with private, self-satisfying glee. Those who are weary of "racism" around every corner will just be even more likely to vote for Trump.

And those who want to protect what's left of the Constitution, if they are really serious about that, and its their most important issue, will be forced to vote for Trump. Even the ones who really don't like Trump. I would, at this time, fall into that category.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Dredging up old stuff that is not actually racist but casting it as so, smacks of desperation. And it offends millions who are tired of calling everything racism. Those who are adamantly opposed to trump, and want to believe anything negative about him, will eat up the examples in the article with private, self-satisfying glee. Those who are weary of "racism" around every corner will just be even more likely to vote for Trump.

.

Trump has certainly cornered the "we're sick of your crap" vote....

like Obama...he's much better on teleprompter than when he's running his mouth unfiltered

[wdmso]

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."

From the leading republican in the GOP I guess he's wrong along with everyone else who took his meaning

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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."

From the leading republican in the GOP I guess he's wrong along with everyone else who took his meaning

Yes, Paul Ryan is wrong. It may surprise you to know that he is not perfect. And that he doesn't want Trump to be the nominee. And that he appears to be as much afraid of the mainstream media as the rest of the establishment Republicans.

Mexican heritage is not a race. Mexican population is comprised of all the genetic races. And not all Mexicans have the same heritage. Mexican is not a race, but it is part of Curiel's heritage. And if Mexican were a race, and American were a race, then, if Curiel is American, not Mexican, what would be his race?

And if we insist that his Mexican heritage is his race, then Donald Trump is right--it would mean Curiel is, as Trump is reputed to have said, Mexican, not American.

Do you see how twisted and convoluted it becomes when language becomes sloppy and words morph into incorrect meanings when it suits the speaker to use them that way? And how devious that is when used to slander someones character? And why the tactic is so prevalent in politics?

BTW, another reason Trump is popular with so many is that he is not afraid of the media.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yes, Paul Ryan is wrong. It may surprise you to know that he is not perfect. And that he doesn't want Trump to be the nominee. And that he appears to be as much afraid of the mainstream media as the rest of the establishment Republicans.

Mexican heritage is not a race. Mexican population is comprised of all the genetic races. And not all Mexicans have the same heritage. Mexican is not a race, but it is part of Curiel's heritage. And if Mexican were a race, and American were a race, then, if Curiel is American, not Mexican, what would be his race?

And if we insist that his Mexican heritage is his race, then Donald Trump is right--it would mean Curiel is, as Trump is reputed to have said, Mexican, not American.

Do you see how twisted and convoluted it becomes when language becomes sloppy and words morph into incorrect meanings when it suits the speaker to use them that way? And how devious that is when used to slander someones character? And why the tactic is so prevalent in politics?

BTW, another reason Trump is popular with so many is that he is not afraid of the media.

I only see it getting twisted and convoluted by those defending him.. "how devious that is when used to slander someones character? " so are you admitting wrong doing by Trump? or was that for those who pushed back against his comment ?