Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Its not a long shot to say another race can practice prejudice against a white man, when white men and white judges have been doing it for so long." You said it yourself: white men haven't been systematically discriminated against in the US for centuries, but People of Color have been. It's not about practicing prejudice. It's about leveling the playing field so that every American has equal opportunity, regardless…
WTF? Did you just imply it's fine to discriminate against whites? Please tell me how I can interpret your comment as not absolutely racist..
Trump
321–330 of 394 posts
Re: Trump
#322While I think Trump is a bad choice, I think comparing him to Hitler is overzealous and irresponsible. There are no doubt similarities between the two but Hitler wrote an entire book about the "Jewish Peril" and how it was destroying society and needed to be dealt with. It was clear that Hitler had an agenda that was anti-semetic, and the charisma/ability to execute on it. Trump is a racist and a bigot, but he is far…
While I think Trump is a bad choice, I think comparing him to Hitler is overzealous and irresponsible. I think it's just plain lazy. In Presidential elections, we generally have terrible choices (even if this doesn't become obvious until much later). This year is particularly noteworthy. Painting one side as evil incarnate is neither insightful nor productive, and the type of fodder easily available on hundreds of ot…
Re: Trump
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any arguments or just name calling? Just because the parties agree on some issues doesn't mean the system is rigged.
There were several arguments in my above comment, but I understand that questioning one's own assumptions is tough.
Re: Trump
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage > La Raza is a group that advocates for a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants. What does that have to do with his heritage. There are people that believe that without Mexican descent. I believe it, and I'm not Mexican, and am not an immigrant, and neither are my parents. There are people of Mexican descent tha…
> Reducing people's behavior to something fueled by ethnicity is racism. So when people say "white people are often racist", that's racism? (I actually agree, minorities are often very racist like that!) > Freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right. Most rights are suspended at the border anyways.
Depending on how you interpret "often", it can be. It's functionally no different than "X people are often lazy" in how it paints a population based on some demographic which actually has nothing to do with that attribute.
If you treat "often" in it's literal sense, as in "this happens a lot", then as long as it's happened at least a few times, it's subjectively true, since often is relative to what you think a good baseline is. If you think one time is more than should be seen, then experiencing it five times could be called "often" (technically. It quickly breaks down when applied to colloquial use in this situation).
The real problem here is assuming a set of personal experiences, whether they number 10 or 1000, necessarily indicate a trait that scales across the entire population of those people. Even leaving out things like confirmation bias, where your original data may be woefully inaccurate, there is little to no evidence that any trend you think you are seeing applies to that ethnicity equally in other locations and situations. You can look at the sentiments of other people and stories in the media for corroboration, but since those aren't accurate representations either, it's still left open to rampant confirmation bias.
This aspect of human psychology was less problematic when we all lived in somewhat small groups. In those cases, the other was the other tribe. Even though they probably looked like you, they were the outsiders, and some distrust and stereotyping of them served the dual purposes of security and social cohesion. The same psychological aspects are at play, and they still cause us to group together, but unfortunately now it promotes the opposite of social cohesion. (and now you have my pop psy take on it).
> (I actually agree, minorities are often very racist like that!)
I see what you did there. :)
Re: Trump
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it kind of sad that we can fall all over ourselves declaring how some white judges are totally biased against minorities (or biased in favor of other rich white people... like the judge in the recent Stanford rape case) and that is just fine. But flip the script and suggest that a hispanic judge could possibly be biased against a person that has been quoted (and/or misquoted) as saying unkind things against ce…
If the judge is acting in a manner unfit of a US judge, why dont trumps lawyers file for a recusal of the judge, or any other various legal methods of assigning a different judge to the case? Can you show any evidence that the judge has acted in a manner unfit of his judicial duty? Or that the case lead to outcomes that were harsher than the norm for such a decision?
Re: Trump
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Give people enough resources and opportunities, and they will often better themselves. The paradox is that giving people resources and opportunities is the wisdom behind left-wing politics, the opposite of what Trump and the Republican party represent...
The government does not create resources. Giving people resources means taking resources from people, passing it through enormously vast, complex and ever expanding bureaucracy and then giving whatever is left to the those that the bureaucracy deemed worthy. This is the wisdom behind left-wing politics, and I think it is only natural it does not look particularly wise to some. Adding to that huge amount of regulation…
This sounds more like the military industrial complex than the Social Security Administration. The SSA pays out something like $870 billion per year (2015) with fewer than 70 thousand employees. It's spending less than a percent of that amount on wages. That's way better than most private charities.
In terms of draining resources out of our society versus benefiting it, the right wing darling of the military industrial complex is far worse than the darling of FDR's New Deal.
Re: Trump
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Give people enough resources and opportunities, and they will often better themselves. The paradox is that giving people resources and opportunities is the wisdom behind left-wing politics, the opposite of what Trump and the Republican party represent...
The government does not create resources. Giving people resources means taking resources from people, passing it through enormously vast, complex and ever expanding bureaucracy and then giving whatever is left to the those that the bureaucracy deemed worthy. This is the wisdom behind left-wing politics, and I think it is only natural it does not look particularly wise to some. Adding to that huge amount of regulation…
Re: Trump
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the judge is acting in a manner unfit of a US judge, why dont trumps lawyers file for a recusal of the judge, or any other various legal methods of assigning a different judge to the case? Can you show any evidence that the judge has acted in a manner unfit of his judicial duty? Or that the case lead to outcomes that were harsher than the norm for such a decision?
Maybe they did or will do that. I'm not privy to any of the inner workings of this case. If you are then maybe you could share those details. I simple said it is possible he is biased and suggesting so is not racist.
So either he is fit to be a judge and is capable of being impartial or he isnt.
by the way Trumps attorney has said publicly that they will not seek to have the judge removed from the case. Actions speak louder than words.
Re: Trump
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump's claims are actually true.
Please Explain. For example, he wishes to deport the families of undocumented immigrants, including children born in the United States. How is that true or legal?
Re: Trump
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
WTF? Did you just imply it's fine to discriminate against whites? Please tell me how I can interpret your comment as not absolutely racist..
I did not. I am saying that providing a leg up to a person of color today, to offset centuries of systematic discrimination, does not represent 'discrimination against whites.' Likewise, the fact that a Chicano Judge has made decisions in the past which benefit people of color does not make him 'racist against whites.'
There's a difference between helping blacks because they're poor (as long as you also help poor whites and others), and helping blacks because they're black. The latter is by definition racism (because you're not helping whites because they're white). For example, Obama needs no help.