The General Terrorist Rampage Thread

[Whittaker]

@AZ_
"It is wonderful to be back in Oregon. Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states. I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."
___Barack Obama

I don't believe Obama thinks there are 57 states,
Do you?

I hope not because it would be inane to think that.
Extreme political partisanship leads to inane positions.

 

[Cavatt]

Bump

I'm not answering your question until you answer me what "white pride" means that I don't understand. Im from Kentucky, I know what it means. I think sometimes you northerners don't know what the heck you are talking about because no way would you want to be associated with these guys even by accident. David should be running from that term.

 

[-Akronite-]

@AZ_
"It is wonderful to be back in Oregon. Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states. I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."
___Barack Obama

I don't believe Obama thinks there are 57 states,
Do you?

I hope not because it would be inane to think that.
Extreme political partisanship leads to inane positions.

He misspoke. If anyone had called him out I doubt he would double down on his words.

Trump on the other hand decided to call into question the ability of a judge because of his Mexican heritage. Hmmmm...

Look, you can bend over backwards to find the best possible interpretation of Trump's words to pretend he wasn't being racist in that moment. But if you don't think he's a bigot you're just being willfully ignorant. Central Park 5. That's enough to know right there.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

[

He misspoke. If anyone had called him out I doubt he would double down on his words.

Trump on the other hand decided to call into question the ability of a judge because of his Mexican heritage. Hmmmm...

Oh hell, why not....

The left consistently argues that "diversity" (based on ethnicity/sex) is an independent positive good because people from different backgrounds represent different viewpoints. I've seen more articles than I can count on how black judges, Latino judges, female judges, etc., are more likely to bring a positive perspective to certain issues than are white male judges. The most obvious example of that is Sotomayor's "Wise Latina" comment. In fact, I've personally heard Latino judges talk about their "greater sensitivity" to the problems faced by the Latino community. I've been a "table-filler" at some Hispanic Bar Association events, and there is a very clear bias in their programs on issues such as immigration. And that goes back to way before Trump.

Now, it was stupid as hell for Trump to say what he did because he had no knowledge that this particular judge had such biases. But the truth is that he may have been right on the substance, because politicization of the judiciary is rampant. Anyone who thinks gender/ethnic solidarity isn't a major factor for some people, including some judges, is living in a fantasy world.

 

[-Akronite-]

Oh hell, why not....

The left consistently argues that "diversity" (based on ethnicity/sex) is an independent positive good because people from different backgrounds represent different viewpoints. I've seen more articles than I can count on how black judges, Latino judges, female judges, etc., are more likely to bring a positive perspective to certain issues than are white male judges. The most obvious example of that is Sotomayor's "Wise Latina" comment. In fact, I've personally heard Latino judges talk about their "greater sensitivity" to the problems faced by the Latino community. I've been a "table-filler" at some Hispanic Bar Association events, and there is a very clear bias in their programs on issues such as immigration. And that goes back to way before Trump.

Now, it was stupid as hell for Trump to say what he did because he had no knowledge that this particular judge had such biases. But the truth is that he may have been right on the substance, because politicization of the judiciary is rampant. Anyone who thinks gender/ethnic solidarity isn't a major factor for some people, including some judges, is living in a fantasy world.

The judge wasn't making a decision on immigration.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Choosing to not believe words have meanings is a cop out.

Of course words have meanings. The issue is that words sometimes have different meanings and different connotations to different groups and to different people. You cannot assume that a word or phrase that has a specific connotation in one area of the country, or in one context, has the same meaning elsewhere. Additionally, the meaning of words can change or shift over time, and when such changes are occurring, it is entirely possible for people to be working from two different definitions.

It is a very common rhetorical trick on the internet to try to assign a specific connotation to a certain word or phrase to impute an offensive/evil motive or meaning to someone, who in fact did not intend the meaning being imputed to him/

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Just a couple things.

The difference between white and black people here is that black people had their heritage/language/culture forcibly taken from they if they are descended from slaves.

Well, certainly that his true of the people taken as slaves. But in terms of their descendants, and especially since the 14th Amendment, I had no more choice as to my cultural heritage than does a descendant of slaves.

 

[-Akronite-]

Of course words have meanings. The issue is that words sometimes have different meanings and different connotations to different groups and to different people. You cannot assume that a word or phrase that has a specific connotation in one area of the country, or in one context, has the same meaning elsewhere. Additionally, the meaning of words can change or shift over time, and when such changes are occurring, it is entirely possible for people to be working from two different definitions.

It is a very common rhetorical trick on the internet to try to assign a specific connotation to a certain word or phrase to impute an offensive/evil motive or meaning to someone, who in fact did not intend the meaning being imputed to him/

Yeah but it's pretty clear that Trump has been scapegoating immigrants for a lot of problems and crime in this country. So fuck that.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The judge wasn't making a decision on immigration.

So what?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Yeah but it's pretty clear that Trump has been scapegoating immigrants for a lot of problems and crime in this country. So fuck that.

I'm not defending what Trump said -- I made it very clear why it was wrong to say what he did. I'm simply pointing to the underlying reality, which includes a lot of folks on the left being thrilled with, and even advocating for, judicial biases based on the ethnicity/sex of a judge.

 

[-Akronite-]

Well, certainly that his true of the people taken as slaves. But in terms of their descendants, and especially since the 14th Amendment, I had no more choice as to my cultural heritage than does a descendant of slaves.

Slaves didn't choose their heritage either. What is your point here?

You're on a cold streak.

 

[-Akronite-]

So what?

Exactly.

Your argument was that Hispanic judges may have biases on immigration issues. But the decision wasn't about immigration. This is basically saying that any Mexican will be unable to put aside their bias to properly judge the case of anyone anti-immigration, which is ridiculous.

 

[-Akronite-]

I'm not defending what Trump said -- I made it very clear why it was wrong to say what he did. I'm simply pointing to the underlying reality, which includes a lot of folks on the left being thrilled with, and even advocating for, judicial biases based on the ethnicity/sex of a judge.

I said Trump's claim was racist. You argued it wasn't. That's defending it whether you want to admit it or not.

You have, however, stated that it was "stupid as hell," which sounds like another cop out of yours. "Hey, I don't LIKE Trump, I'll just defend everything he says and does." What do you mean it was stupid as hell? What does that mean?

It was racist, because he's a racist. And I know you and many that share your perspective want to attack the left for always bringing up racism. I get that, I see that. But if this is the story of the boy who cried wolf, this is the real wolf showing up.

 

[David.]

The judge wasn't making a decision on immigration.

No, but he's asked to rule on a case where the dude was running for president and was diametrically opposed to his agenda.

This is pretty open and shut.

 

[gourimoko]

Now, it was stupid as hell for Trump to say what he did because he had no knowledge that this particular judge had such biases. But the truth is that he may have been right on the substance, because politicization of the judiciary is rampant. Anyone who thinks gender/ethnic solidarity isn't a major factor for some people, including some judges, is living in a fantasy world.

That's ridiculous...

You literally just said that, in your anecdotal experience, Latino judges and lawyers have obvious biases towards pro-Latino positions in immigration cases. You then argue that, because of those experience, Trump "may have been right" about saying that a Mexican-American judge has to recuse himself because of the sole fact that he is Mexican-American.

Again, that's ridiculous... He "might be" right? He has no basis for the claim other than Curiel's racial identity.

It's an absurd claim, and one that attempts to stereotype a federal judge based on his or her race; such that, any and all cases they hear, should be viewed through the lens of a supposed bias, based on their race.

It's an outrageous argument!