1. Scottish is not a race. 2. Being racist means that one discriminates against at least one race, not necessarily all of them. 3. It's ridiculous to think that anyone would discriminate against one's own race and one's own self, as in your argument. 4. This is irrelevant to the main discussion.
Trump does not call all illegal immigrants entering the US rapists and murderers, he instead states that Mexico the country is sending these types of people. He is implying that the Mexican government pushes the burden of law enforcement on the US by pushing these types of people across the border.
If interpreted instead as all people crossing the border - Trump lists types of immigrants: people with problems, people with drugs, people who are rapists, and some good people. I would assume that most people crossing the border have problems; why would they be crossing the US border illegally.
Additionally, drugs are obviously crossing the border with people, and plenty of people are raped along the way so there must be rapists coming in as well. And lastly some people must be coming in illegally that are "good" i.e. without problems.
Just recently, Trump questioned the judge presiding over the case of Trump University's fraud, calling him biased for the simple reason that he "is probably Mexican" based on appearance, even though a federal judge is 100% American and deemed fit to hold such a powerful position. Is this not racism?
You must daft to think that he would not have concerns with a judge who is a member of La Raza presiding over his case. You clearly want to identify him as a racist and the judge could agree with you and be biased. It is not racist to want to be represented fairly.
Is it inherently racist to state that ones heritage could influence their decision making? It is a fairly strong statement that probably should not have been said, but is it racist? He didn't infer he was superior to the judge, he just questioned his impartiality.
I would argue that it depends on the specific case. Sure, we are often influenced by our heritage. However, to assume, without mentioning the judge's specific background or associations, purely based on his outward appearance, that he is biased, is racist.
sources:
Our race is something we can't control. Assuming that the judge would think a certain way, would be unable to do the duties of his office, would put the interests of a foreign nation or foreign nationals ahead of those of his own country- America- is simply insulting and unacceptable. Racism, by definition, is prejudice or discrimination based on broad assumptions of people's outward appearance (race) without respecting or taking into account the individual.
I do not know where you found your definition of racism. Results on google suggest racism assumes the person holds a viewpoint of superiority over another solely based on race. Which is what I based my response on.
sources:
Also where do you get based on the "outward appearance" of judge Gonzalo Curiel
Trump is not necessarily being racist but perhaps racial stereotyping. Which is in itself not inherently racist unless it infers that Trump is racially superior to the judge.
Taking a step back, everyone has biases. It's human. But a judge's job is to put aside personal biases and be a fair vessel of the law. You are accusing a vetted, experienced federal judge who has never had such allegations before based on assumptions. He has never personally showed such bias.
sources:
And before you say his ruling is biased, I'd like to point out that there are 2 simple broad rulings possible only. In favor of Trump U, or against it. Think a judge is biased in his ruling? Prove it. Otherwise it smells an awfully lot like whining because the ruling was not in Trump's favor.
I agree, the judge shouldn't be "pro-Trump" he should be impartial. And I don't know the probability that the judge was or was not biased, you can't really calculate it or quantify it. It's "La Raza" v "never before" and that's simply speculation
I agree. It's definitely a difficult thing to grasp or quantify. In this case though, the burden of proof falls on Trump for making such a drastic accusation in the light of his ruling.
Does one want all-white juries or all-black juries. Is it racist to suspect potential bias in another. Additionally he may have reason to believe he was treated unfairly in this specific case (you've noted he has had many lawsuits).
Juries are meant to be a representative cross-section of society. A judge is one person. That one person is either white or black or whatever race he/she is. Are you saying all white defendants should have a white judge and all black defendants a black one?
He "may have had reasons" ??? I'm sorry, that is not an argument. You think he has valid reasons? List them. Explain them. I've noticed he has had many lawsuits. Am I supposed to give him credit for that? A medal, perhaps? That is completely irrelevant.
I don't have time to look up the case at the moment, you propose that his assertion of his heritage is evident of racism. Without explaining why the case was legit.You are just as guilty as I am, perhaps that is the only conclusion he could draw, he certainly doesn't know the judge.
This entire argument on both sides devolves into supposition with no clear outcome. Is he biased idk, is he not idk. Human beings are flawed, I don't know if he was impartial, and neither do you?
I totally agree. It's the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind Trump's accusation that's racist imo. You're right, it's impossible for us ordinary citizens with no insider knowledge to determine bias. I think whether the judge may actually have bias should be a separate argument from whether Trump's
Perhaps it was the only conclusion he could draw. Doesn't mean that it's a reasonable conclusion or that we shouldn't call him racist for it. That's true, I'm not asserting that the case is legit. TBH I'm not a legal expert and don't have evidence for or against the case itself.
sources:
To me, Trump is racist simply because he made an assumption and accusation based on nothing else but a person's race. If he had pointed out specific reasons the judge personally has demonstrated bias in the past, for example, it would have been a reasonable argument. If I knew nothing about someone personally, it would definitely be racist to assume that if the person was Scottish-American, he'd support Scottish independence, or if he was Chinese-American, he'd support the Communist Party. And those are not even totally equal examples because they don't necessarily include a direct conflict of interest with America. You see what I mean?
We should treat people different based on their country of origin as immigrants, not their (perceived or otherwise) ethnicity. That's what he's getting at.
hj
He wants to build a wall to keep out illegal immigrants, but that wall would do nothing, as most illegal immigrants come in through the country via visa, which they then overstay. This means that the wall is just meant as a way to keep people feeling safe from Mexicans coming in to the country.
How is that at all racist? Building a wall to keep illegal immigrants from climbing over fences isn't racist. Trump isn't saying he doesn't want Mexicans in America
It is actually more like 41% that entered legally which is not most, there are other problems with illegal immigrants than crime such as reduced wages and burdens on social services such as education and welfare. It's not just so everyone can feel safe.
This means we are ALL racists and begs the question og whether DT is more racist enough than the average american to warrent calling him out as a racist of interest
"to warrent calling him out as a racist of interest"
-
I am not calling him out as a racist of interest. If you read the initial premise, it is about him being racist, not that he is especially racist in regards to others. It is irrelevant.
If you read your premise in the purely logical fashion you suggest, DT is clearly not proven to be racist by any of the 'becauses'. He would have to make a unamibiguously racist statement which is very unlikely for a politician even with his 'outspokeness'
Then you should put the "but" premises to those statements, and not argue that he is not much more racist than the average human, which is irrelevant to the original premise.
I am not a robot and assume the premise means DT is unusualy racist and or appealing to racist and his policies if enacted would cause racist effects even if the policies and statement arent strictly speaking racist in of themselves if you apply formal logic
Then you assumed incorrectly because "racist" is literally only an adjective to describe different qualities of a person. Thus the only premises that should be debated in here is whether he expresses those qualities, not the political/social/moral/philosophical implications coming out of it.
Donald Trump is racist -OR- Donald Trump corp. employs statistically less black people than you would expect for the population, but more than similar companies.
If the premise is DT drank human breastmilk then it is true. If other drank breast milk too, he still drank it and is irrelevant to DT.You don't seem to understand this.
Being a racist is not dependent on other people's racism. 200 years ago most people in the USA believed black people were inferior. It doesn't matter how many people were agreeing, it was still incredibly racist.
the premise surely implies that DT is especialy racist. You wouldnt say 'DT likes cheese' and then go on to justify it by arguing that he occasionaly eats it.
Logicaly correct, but it makes the statement uninteresting. Ie. 'Sure everyone is a little bit racist sometimes but we all try hard not to be. DT is not unusual in this respect'
Ok, but then we aren’t using the same definition. For me, "racism" is a particular ideology, and "racists" are people that share this ideology. In this sense not everyone is "a little bit racist".
We do not live in robot world. If you called someone a racist on TV and then said 'oh but I meant only in the same way all are a little bit racist' I think you would still be liable for defamation
I doubt the accuracy of that statistic, but let's not argue that. The number of people who are also "racist" is irrelevant, because society today recognizes and condemns racism. It's a bit like 100 other people vandalizing doesn't excuse 1 person for doing something recognized as wrong.
skissor
