Lurker > red sox 777

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Well, look at what happened in Greece. They held democratic elections, the voters elected a government for change, and the EU crushed them.

well yeah. in the last european election i voted for a super anti-EU dutch party - it got like 12 votes. that doesn't mean the EU is "antidemocractic" - that's like saying the US is a dictatorship because the federal government overrules states' rights most of the time or something. it's more like most europeans want a big, powerful EU and the EU says "you got it" (exceptions like the brexit aside, obviously).

Well, Greece didn't vote that way though. They voted in an anti-EU government and were basically threatened with penury unless they capitulated, which they ended up doing. Britain could do Brexit because they aren't in a position where the EU has the power to cripple their economy, but most of the poorer countries in the EU do not have that luxury.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

US Steel was once the most valuable company in the country. Part of the goal is to bring the jobs back.

Literally after World War II?

You are not making a convincing case.

Before World War II. Around 1900 I think.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

JeffreyRaze posted...

Aren't the tariffs on materials rather than finished goods? Wouldn't that raise the costs for manufacturers in the states, costing jobs more than producing them?

Not to mention the retaliatory tariffs >_>

It would help US steel mills. And yes, it would raise costs for auto companies, hence the need for tariffs on finished German cars.

According to Google, there are approximately 150,000 people employed by Steel Mills and foundries combined.

Close to a million people work in the Auto Industry.

Great priorities!

Trump is already working on the auto tariffs. And 150k is much lower than it used to be. US Steel was once the most valuable company in the country. Part of the goal is to bring the jobs back.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

JeffreyRaze posted...

Aren't the tariffs on materials rather than finished goods? Wouldn't that raise the costs for manufacturers in the states, costing jobs more than producing them?

Not to mention the retaliatory tariffs >_>

It would help US steel mills. And yes, it would raise costs for auto companies, hence the need for tariffs on finished German cars.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Actually, let me correct that. Obama wasn't a competent negotiator in his first term. Probably he was simply naive and inexperienced, qualities which he later corrected, although one could also argue that it was because he was being advised by Hillary.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Also, I respect the people in power in the EU. They appear to be tough negotiators who know what they want and wield a big stick (the biggest economy in the world). I wouldn't want to send someone like Hillary Clinton to negotiate against them. That would be a recipe for disaster.

red sox 777 posted...

And yeah, cars will be more expensive if the tariffs go in. I'll have to pay more for my next car a few years down the line. That's fine by me if we can help out manufacturing jobs in the US. If it isn't fine by Democrats, well, too bad, elections have consequences.

Ok so wheres the benefit of not-Hillary Clinton,

The manufacturing jobs in the US that will pay higher wages. Also, our current trade deals were largely not negotiated by Hillary Clinton. She was only secretary of state for 4 years. By all appearances, Reagan, Bush 41, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were, at a minimum, competent negotiators. Hillary might have been a disaster on the order of Bush 43 if her campaign was an indication of her skills at reading people.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Not_an_Owl posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Fun fact about the jobs report: it's illegal market manipulation for Trump to talk about it before it's released!

The problem is that the sole check on the President's power is impeachment, and not even Democrats are talking about that right now.

Is the president even subject to the STOCK Act?
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

metroid composite posted...

red sox 777 posted...

xp1337 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

But we don't want their goods. We want people to buy American to bring back the jobs.

damn why don't we just ban all imports then

That's what Thomas Jefferson did. But come on now, you can't expect the 1% to go without their Dom Perignon and Rolexes and Porsches. We don't want to ban things, just make them expensive.

And expensive goods are good, because then the American factory workers making them will earn more money. Will it cost some white collar folks a bit? Of course. But you know, you should have thought about that before losing the election.

I mean...as a videogame developer, banning all imports could torpedo our industry.

Guess where all the console are made? In China. Block all trade from China, and suddenly PS4 goes from $400 to $1000. That would probably kill the US market; like we might actually start focusing on Europe as our primary market.

And videogames are not the only industry that would suffer without imports. A lot of the currently active car factories in the US are foreign companies (Hyundai, Nissan, Toyota, Honda). What happens to these if we impose a ban on foreign goods? A lot of companies also mix and match manufacturing; Ford has plants in the US, but also plants in Mexico (Mexico makes a lot of the parts, Ford imports them to create finished cars).

No one has suggested a complete embargo other than as a hypothetical (and I immediately opposed it). The gaming industry is not one where we have a big trade deficit and I haven't heard people proposing tariffs targeting gaming.

And yeah, cars will be more expensive if the tariffs go in. I'll have to pay more for my next car a few years down the line. That's fine by me if we can help out manufacturing jobs in the US. If it isn't fine by Democrats, well, too bad, elections have consequences.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Also, I respect the people in power in the EU. They appear to be tough negotiators who know what they want and wield a big stick (the biggest economy in the world). I wouldn't want to send someone like Hillary Clinton to negotiate against them. That would be a recipe for disaster. David Cameron walked into those negotiations with a weak position (I don't want Brexit but my voters might so please give me something), and all he managed was to get himself to resign.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

charmander6000 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

And it may be that the EU is a good deal for the richer countries in Northern and Western Europe. The institutions of the Union appear to be fairly responsive to what those countries want.

You can say the same thing about large/swing states in the US.

Yes, I was thinking about this and why I don't feel bothered by the same situation in the US. I think it's because the states in the US that currently effectively have no representation in the federal government (California, New York, etc) also generally have other levers of power. They have money, they run the media, they make all the movies, they're home to the headquarters of most of the big businesses, etc. They have no political power because of how badly they lost the 2016 election (losing each of the branches of government by a small margin), but they retain almost all the levers of soft power. And since most of the 1% live in these states, they will not be utterly abandoned by Republicans either.

I guess that's the explanation, but my guess is, if I were a German citizen, I could probably come up with a similar defense of the EU.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

And it may be that the EU is a good deal for the richer countries in Northern and Western Europe. The institutions of the Union appear to be fairly responsive to what those countries want.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

I would support being tough on the European Union. It's an antidemocratic government of technocrats that protects the elite.

1) it's not really a government. it's a union.
2) how is it antidemocratic? you know the EU holds democratic elections, right?

Well, look at what happened in Greece. They held democratic elections, the voters elected a government for change, and the EU crushed them.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

I would support being tough on the European Union. It's an antidemocratic government of technocrats that protects the elite. I'd support major US aid to Greece, Portugal, Italy, etc. if they will leave the European Union. Massive US aid to Greece if they will default on their debt to Germany/the EU, to set an example that predatory lending to countries will not lead to profits.

And aid for Spain is fine too, but they've gotta let Catalonia go!
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

red sox 777 posted...

But we don't want their goods. We want people to buy American to bring back the jobs.

uhhhh
no

Weren't you paying attention during the campaign? The president promised this, over and over.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

xp1337 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

But we don't want their goods. We want people to buy American to bring back the jobs.

damn why don't we just ban all imports then

That's what Thomas Jefferson did. But come on now, you can't expect the 1% to go without their Dom Perignon and Rolexes and Porsches. We don't want to ban things, just make them expensive.

And expensive goods are good, because then the American factory workers making them will earn more money. Will it cost some white collar folks a bit? Of course. But you know, you should have thought about that before losing the election.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

But we don't want their goods. We want people to buy American to bring back the jobs.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Why would being an ally protect you from tariffs? What benefits is the United States receiving from these allies that should exempt them from tariffs?
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

That's an interesting case. They should be sued into the ground under the Civil Rights Act. I'm not sure the employees can win in court but they should.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Jakyl25 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Trump never said he was going to do small government.

he talked a lot about lowering taxes, which kind of invokes the idea of making the government smaller (i guess it depends on what the president plans to do with the tax money, though).

It would be logical, however, Republicans have cut taxes and increased spending for the last 37 years. They increased borrowing to do it, which is Trump's favorite business strategy anyway.

Still waiting on him to fulfill his campaign promise of telling China were just not gonna pay them back ever, and daring them to do something about it

There's nothing they could do about it, but that kind of chaos would torpedo our markets too. And, our government wouldn't be able to borrow anymore. Depriving our government of borrowing is like depriving a human of oxygen.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

You'd call the one-sided banning of imports and tariffs "renegotiating trade deals"?

Yes. This is an early step in the negotiation. Why would another country agree to renegotiate if they thought we wouldn't impose tariffs if they didn't?
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Also, Trump expressly promised to renegotiate all our trade deals. This was a major campaign promise.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Trump never said he was going to do small government.

he talked a lot about lowering taxes, which kind of invokes the idea of making the government smaller (i guess it depends on what the president plans to do with the tax money, though).

It would be logical, however, Republicans have cut taxes and increased spending for the last 37 years. They increased borrowing to do it, which is Trump's favorite business strategy anyway.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Trump never said he was going to do small government. He proposed a ton of big government things, like lots of infrastructure, a big wall, and increased military funding.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Not_an_Owl posted...

Eddv posted...

I think a legal challenge would go well - Congress was given the Power of the Purse for a reason.

This reason. This exact reason.

One man should not be able to make financial decisions that effect everyone. He should need Congressional Approval and as the great Thomas Jefferson once said "You dont have the votes, you dont have the votes"

implying this congress would stand up to trump over anything

implying the supreme court would stand up to trump when the challenge inevitably gets to them

This Congress has maintained the filibuster, rendering them incapable of passing bills more than once a year without Democratic support. And yeah, I was confused as to how Trump could just order tariffs by fiat. Figured there was some enabling legislation Congress previously passed. Guess not.

Although, in this case I don't mind (other than for setting bad constitutional precedent). Trump can't really negotiate with other countries if Congress isn't going to back him up.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

And honestly, if blowing up the health insurance markets with 100% premium increases for a year or two is what we need to achieve real change, and affordable healthcare in the United States in the long term, I support President Trump in going for it. The longer we wait, the more painful it will be.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

And the conflating of healthcare with health insurance is a brilliant ploy on the part of the health insurance industry, which sadly is working very well. The truth is that the American health insurance industry delivers a substantially worse healthcare product than in every other first world country, and quite a few countries that are much poorer, while charging 60% more as a percentage of GDP. And the US has a higher GDP per capita than most first world countries. My guess is, if you exclude Medicare from the picture the US is getting bilked even harder than that 60% gap.

Here's an example. A visitor was lightly scratched by my cat (indoor, immunized, housecat). It turned out that she was traveling to China the next day. When she got there, she went and saw a doctor regarding the cat scratch, which I thought was completely ridiculous. Well, there were two other people at that doctor's office who were also there for cat scratches! People can see their doctors for stuff like that when it doesn't cost hundreds of dollars to see a doctor for a few minutes.

If we take what other first world countries pay as a percentage of GDP to reflect what quality healthcare would cost in a reasonable market, and the excess in the US as the premium we pay for our system, we would find that out of every $100, a bit over $60 is for healthcare and a bit under $40 is for premiums, which are supposed to be the price of mitigating risk in a normal insurance industry. But we pay the premiums for routine, expected, common procedures here, which is why they are so high compared to the cost of healthcare itself.

And not all of it is going to the health insurance industry as corporate profit - remember that industry employs 2.5% of the country, so a lot of it is being paid out in the form of salaries, advertising, legal fees, lobbying, rents for office space, etc. That's a ton of jobs producing basically zero value. It's an industry of leechcraft, and it's all made possible by this idea that health insurance = healthcare. That more people should be insured because otherwise they wouldn't be able to receive healthcare. And with Obamacare and the help of some sellout or naive Democrats, this idea has become more entrenched than ever, and the premiums are higher than ever.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

With work requirements, I guess my feeling is that I just don't buy that there are so many people out there who aren't working because they are comfortable with being on welfare. Welfare doesn't provide a lot of money in this country, unless you are talking about stuff like corporate welfare, the federal program to compensate people who lose beachfront houses they build right up against the ocean, California's property tax scheme that is designed to favor long-time (and therefore rich, based on appreciation of property value alone) owners of real property, or rent control. And nothing like that carries work requirements.

People don't work because they can't find a job. Or, possibly, they can't find a job that will pay them anything worthwhile. And sure, making minimum wage would be worth someone's while more if they didn't have access to welfare - but if they had access to more welfare without working, maybe it would also motivate that employer to pay higher wages. While our national unemployment rate is now very low, there are still lots of people in very low paid positions. I'd rather put the burden on employers to compete with welfare than on poor people to find work.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

In general, I oppose work requirements, and also oppose anything that increases demand for private health insurance, because this is what drives up the cost of health insurance. I'm reading on Wikipedia that 80% of states contract out their Medicaid programs to private insurers, so, I hope the states are at least negotiating a good rate for it, but I kinda doubt it. Probably, they are being robbed blind, like everyone else in the country using private health insurance.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Republicans still have a majority in both houses of Virginia's legislature. It's just the lopsided Northern Virginia votes that make it fairly safely blue in presidential elections nowadays (and 2008 was the first time since the 60s).

I wonder if the GOP won back the governorship of VA, if they would consider ceding the Virginia part of the District of Columbia back to the federal government to help out the GOP a bit in elections.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Suprak the Stud posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Its always so creepy to go into someones mentions who has pissed off one side or the other and see baskets of people responding with the exact same buzzwords/images.

It does happen on all sides but I see it SO much more from Trumpers than I do from the left or more traditional right.

It is so weird. I'll see an argument on the_donald, then come here and Ulti and Vlado will be saying the EXACT same argument, almost word for word sometimes.

It's totally different from normal conservatives, who you can debate. It is almost impossible to debate the core 10% or so of Trump supporters, because our facts aren't the same facts and they just shout the same thing and troll.

Well, Vlado is not American (I think he actually is from the Soviet bloc), and Ulti is not a conservative. Both appear to be having tremendous amounts of fun by posting.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Russia is very skilled at propaganda. Incidentally, Elon Musk is creating a website where the public can rate journalists for truth, which is called.....Pravda.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

JeffreyRaze posted...

Between this and not believing anyone believed in the pizza conspiracy thing, I think you might just be underestimating the amount of crazy out there

That's fair. I think I often sort of write off people who aren't swing voters because I'm not really interested in what they think insofar as they don't influence elections, but a good part of that Trump as savior group probably are genuine swing voters, and not even of the kind that swings between staying home and voting, but even swings between voting for Democrats and Republicans, which is worth double.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Trump supporters haven't taken his statements at face value for 3 years. Because they're not stupid enough to believe them as being statements of fact that are supposed to be taken at face value.

Tell that to Corriks FB friends

A lot of people believe every last word he says.

How do they deal with contradictions or broken promises?
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Let me put it this way. Trump promised to save me about $6,000 a year on my taxes and to make his own taxes go up. He ended up saving me about $2,000 a year, and probably saved himself millions per year. If I took his promises literally I'd be pretty upset about being lied to, but in fact, he actually delivered more than I expected him to deliver.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

The Cavaliers have a shot against the Warriors in this years NBA finals is false, but the sentiment is probably wishful thinking rather than a deliberate effort to mislead.
Michael Jordan was a better basketball player than LeBron James is ridiculous and flies in the face of the evidence, but appears to be sincerely believed in good faith by a large number of people whose minds have been ravaged by nostalgia.

These two examples demonstrate the author of that article's lack of understanding of what a fact is. Neither of these things are facts, hence they cannot be false. These are opinions. Opinions cannot be false. They can be "ridiculous," but they cannot really "fly in the face of evidence."

And naturally, his conclusion is not useful. Out here in the real world, people haven't taken Trump's statements at face value for 3 years. Trump supporters haven't taken his statements at face value for 3 years. Because they're not stupid enough to believe them as being statements of fact that are supposed to be taken at face value.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

The problem with journalists covering Trump is that they are covering him at all. On a deeper level, the problem is that they are woefully unequipped to fight Trump. Even as they try to fight him, they do his bidding, over and over and over.

The best thing they could do is to stop covering him, and let some new, smarter, people, who haven't lost their credibility with the public yet, try their hand at it.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Bredesen became governor amid a fiscal crisis, with a predicted state budget shortfall of $800 million. Much of the shortfall was due to TennCare, which was $650 million over budget.[2] Sundquist had hoped to remedy the budget shortfall by implementing an income tax, but this proved wildly unpopular and was never enacted.[14] Bredesen argued that services would have to be cut, saying, "you can't have Massachusetts services and Tennessee taxes."[14] In 2003, he signed a 9% across-the-board spending cut.[2] In 2004, he enacted a series of changes to TennCare, essentially removing 191,000 Medicaid-eligible patients and reducing benefits. By 2006, these changes had reduced the program's cost by more than $500 million.[2] Bredesen used some of the savings to establish a "safety net" for health clinics affected by the cuts. In 2006, he implemented "Cover Tennessee" to cover people with preexisting conditions and the uninsured.[2]

During his first term, Bredesen enacted a number of measures aimed at improving education. In 2003, the state established the Tennessee Lottery to fund college scholarships for the state's high school graduates.[2] Teachers' pay was raised above average salary in the Southeast, and Tennessees pre-kindergarten initiative was expanded to include a statewide program for four-year-olds. Bredesen created the Governors Books from Birth Foundation, a statewide expansion of Dolly Partons Imagination Library that offers free books for children, and in his fourth year, he signed legislation that increased funding for education by $366.5 million, much of which came from savings due to TennCare reform.[2]

To attract new industry, Bredesen worked with the General Assembly to reform Tennessees worker compensation system (changes supported by the business community and opposed by trial lawyers),[2] and invest in programs to help laid-off employees develop new skills. During his tenure, 2,889 companies, including Nissan and International Paper, expanded or moved to Tennessee, bringing more than 104,000 jobs and $12.8 billion in new business investment to the state.[15]

Bredesen meeting with FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate (back)
Bredesen launched a war on methamphetamine abuse, focusing on treatment, prevention and public awareness, with the Governors Meth-Free Tennessee initiative. Criminal penalties and resources for law enforcement were also enhanced as part of this program, which led to a 50% decline in illegal and toxic meth labs.[16] In 2005, Bredesen signed legislation establishing the Tennessee Heritage Conservation Trust Fund, which increased the states land-buying power in hopes of protecting ecologically significant land and conserving or restoring historically significant areas.[17]

In his 2006 reelection campaign, Bredesen brushed off a primary challenge from John Jay Hooker, winning nearly 90% of the vote.[9] In the general election, he defeated state senator Jim Bryson, 1,247,491 votes to 540,853,[9] sweeping all 95 counties and garnering more votes than any gubernatorial candidate in state history.

This guy sounds like a Republican! A real Republican, who actually got conservative stuff done.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Won all 95 counties? I didn't know that was even possible for a Democrat outside of New England (where there's only about 10 counties per state, and rural counties often vote blue). That's really amazing.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Is this is a real Trump speech? This is so powerfully delivered....
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

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.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Corrik, would it be fair to say that no reasonably smart person who didn't want to be known as a racist would say something that would definitively prove he was racist?
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Corrik posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Racist s*** is like downright offensive s***. Not that you can somehow twist it to be racist.

ALL OF THIS is downright offensive shit.

Do you think Roseannes tweet was or was not racist?

Comparing black people to monkeys is indeed racist.

But not saying someone cant do their job because theyre Mexican

He didn't say they couldn't do their job because they were Mexican. He said they couldn't do their job without bias in the scenario and should recuse due to the case being in regards to ethnicity he shared.

But he hasn't ever said a white judge should recuse themself for being white

How is it not racist to say "Because of your race, you cannot be impartial?"

When has there ever been a case regarding a whites ethnicity under his time period? Can you even point to an example? It was a ruling regarding the ethnicity. Not a ruling involving a person of that ethnicity. .
He didn't say the judge couldn't remove bias because the defendant was Mexican. Lol

It was not a ruling regarding the ethnicity. That was the Trump University case, the plaintiffs were a large group, presumably from multilple different races (and probably majority white given the demographics of the USA). Race was only injected into it because Trump said his campaign statements would be used against him.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Trump's idea is so novel that it is hard to classify at first. I think the argument boils down to, the judge can't rule on Trump's case because Trump is racist. Not because he is in any way unqualified as a judge, but because he could be biased against Trump because of Trump's racist statements.

At any rate, I think this logic can't be allowed to fly. Or litigants with weak cases will be rushing to declare themselves racist against all races, so no one can rule on their case.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Wait, so if I don't like how a judge is ruling on my case, I should be able to make public statements against his race, and then demand that he recuse himself? That seems way too exploitable.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik, what did you make of Trumps claim that Judge Curiel could not be fair because hes Hispanic?

Link.

That said, I believe I remember this and it was because it was in reference to something that dealt with Hispanics.

This was after Trump said Mexico was sending criminals and rapists to the US. He said since Judge Curiel had Mexican ancestry he could not be impartial.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

The election was close enough that there are a lot of "but for" reasons Trump won. For instance, he did much better with the black vote than Romney - I think the Obama/Romney numbers for the black vote in the 3 closest states would have swung the election. Now, maybe there was no way Hillary could have matched Obama's numbers with the black vote. But Obama/Romney numbers with the Hispanic vote would also have swung the election. Trump doing better than Romney with every major race is kinda interesting.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Jakyl25 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Jaykl, what do you think of this statement:

By voting for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, a person enabled Donald Trump, who openly expresses racism, to win. Thus, voting for Hillary over Bernie enabled racism.

Inadvertantly

Plus theres certainly no guarantee Bernie wins anyway

If intent matters (and using inadvertently suggests it does), then I would suggest not using the word "enabled" which is rather loaded with meaning.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Jaykl, what do you think of this statement:

By voting for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, a person enabled Donald Trump, who openly expresses racism, to win. Thus, voting for Hillary over Bernie enabled racism.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Roy Moore didn't win swing voters. He lost in ALABAMA, which Trump won by 30 points or something. Moore probably lost pretty much every swing voter and a bunch of conservatives too.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

"This is why you lost." I would think it's extremely clear. Explaining why liberals lost the election.

even if i agree with your explanation (to a certain extent), i disagree with the certainty with which you're claiming that if the democrats would have been more inclusive, they would have won. there were far more important reasons why hillary lost that were completely beyond her control (xenophobia, sexism, the "fuck you i got mine" mentality, to name a few).

All of those things, besides sexism, were present for Obama's 2 wins (by big margins), and I rather doubt sexism hurt more than racism hurt Obama. More importantly, those things are not within the Democrats' control. They don't translate into useful action.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!