So...white jury isn't fair to black defendant; But Hispanic is fair to Trump???

[The Irish Ram]

Bucs, I thought the exact same thing when a judge threw out a conviction because the jurors were white and yet a Latino can't be biased. Silent majority calls bullshit. Press 1 for English.
Trump 2016 ~ because a Latino judge certainly can be biased, whether from Indiana or South America...

In which case you're the exact same idiot as the OP.

Except for the fact that I know this judge is part of a Pro-Mexican group that is calling for the boycotting of Trump's businesses. And now gets to take one down? Bullshit. He needs to recuse himself on those very grounds and allow an impartial judge to preside over the case. Trump is absolutely right.
You wouldn't have wanted Sen.KKK Byrd to determine the outcome of the OJ Simpson case would you?

You're the idiot. But thanks for sparing me the Felonious Erroneous False Failure Fallacy Comparison Factor Frivolity.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Trump didn't need to point out the man's race(raza), ethnicity or heritage. The judge points out his support quite clearly in the mission of his club:
La Raza Lawyers; an organization with the stated mission “to promote the interests of the Latino communities throughout the state. Raza means race or people. The name is race oriented. It is racist. The group is calling for a Trump boycott!
While Trump wants to curtail the growth of the Latino communities by building a wall.

There is a definite conflict of interest here, and the judge should take himself off of this case. That he hasn't is sort of telling, considering the possibility of the appearance of impropriety.

 

[Correll]

"So...white jury isn't fair to black defendant; But Hispanic is fair to Trump"

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

You also further confirm the fact you're an ignorant putz.

Conservative and stupid clearly go together.

In both examples the claim is that the ethnic divide makes the jury or judge unable to be fair and impartial to the defendant.

[salivating] Once again, that OP premise is a strawman. His own links, when he finally furnished them, demonstrated not one but both cases where juries ---- not judges, juries, which is defined as a group of "one's peers" --- were deliberately engineered to exclude one's peers. I already demonstrated that. And even in that case they would be cultural peers, which clearly doesn't apply to a judge from Indiana.

Not that it has any comparator value here anyway, since he's trying to conflate "judge" with "jury", not to mention "race" with "Hispanic" --- about which more in the next quote.

You lefties DO have a long history of claiming the former, but suddenly when the exact same logic is applied to a situation with a brown judge and a white defendant, you lefties suddenly realize that it is "racist".

Already demonstrated above as a Strawman, but NOBODY --until Peewee Herman above here --- brought up the judge as "Brown". Not even Donald Rump called him "brown", nor did he call himself "white". This strawman has no basis at all. Mac tried to insert it and got busted from here to Honolulu.


So no, the comparison is not at all "valid". Rump didn't bring up a "race". Not only is "Hispanic" not a race, nor is it equivalent to "brown" -- it isn't even the word Rump used. He said "Mexican". That's a nationality.

But it's interesting who's so obsessed with bringing skin color into an event where not even Donald Rump made reference to it.


Holy shit the density is deep in this thread.

Lots of minor quibbles about semantics.

You lefties love to complain about white whatevers, not being fair to black and brown defendants and expect the rest of us to take you seriously,


But if a white guy makes the same complaint, suddenly it's "Racist".




PS. would you care to show me where you were so concerned about the distinction between nationality and Race, when your fellow lefties were calling Trump RACIST over this incident?

If you can show me an example of you doing that, dated before this post, I will take your various semantic issues more seriously and address them.

If not, then not.

BTW, assuming that you CAN'T do that, HA HA!

 

[Pogo]

I can provide countless links of liberals saying this....that white judges and jurors aren't fair to black defendants. Overwhelming evidence of this being claimed.

And libs....well....they believe it.

So....how can they then blame Trump for thinking his judge might be racially biased towards him???

Is this epic hypocrisy on the left? Or....are ONLY white judges and jurors capable of being biased??? One of the two must be true.

I think you are pretending that there is not "countless" mounds documented evidence of whites using the legal system to railroad Blacks. Basically your employing your favorite tactic of false equivalency.

On multiple levels, simultaneously as noted. I suspect that's why he ran away.

 

[Correll]

Trump didn't need to point out the man's race(raza), ethnicity or heritage. The judge points out his support quite clearly in the mission of his club:
La Raza Lawyers; an organization with the stated mission “to promote the interests of the Latino communities throughout the state. The group is calling for a Trump boycott!
While Trump wants to curtail the growth of the Latino communities by building a wall.

There is a definite conflict of interest here, and the judge should take himself off of this case. That he hasn't is sort of telling, considering the possibility of the appearance of impropriety.

 

[Pogo]

Lots of minor quibbles about semantics.

Blatant exposed false comparison fallacies are now "Semantics".

Can't make it up. Busted for unworkable arguments, "oh noes, it's just 'semantics'". Pathetic.

You lefties love to complain about white whatevers, not being fair to black and brown defendants and expect the rest of us to take you seriously,


But if a white guy makes the same complaint, suddenly it's "Racist".

Is it now?
Link?

Perhaps the OP's own strawmen are what we're calling "you lefties"? Or is that "semantics"?

Perhaps Mac's "brown" strawman is what we're calling the "Regressive Left"? Or is that "semantics"?

Want to count up how many times in this thread alone I specifically noted it's NOT "racist"??
Wanna count how many times I pointed out that not only is "Hispanic" not a "race", "Mexican" -- the term Rump actually used --- isn't either?

No, I doubt you do. You'd run out of fingers.

 

[Correll]

Lots of minor quibbles about semantics.

Blatant exposed false comparison fallacies are now "Semantics".

Can't make it up. Busted for unworkable arguments, "oh noes, it's just 'semantics'". Pathetic.

You lefties love to complain about white whatevers, not being fair to black and brown defendants and expect the rest of us to take you seriously,


But if a white guy makes the same complaint, suddenly it's "Racist".

Is it now?
Link?

Want to count up how many times in this thread alone I specifically noted it's NOT "racist"??
Wanna count how many times I pointed out that not only is "Hispanic" not a "race", "Mexican" -- the term Rump actually used --- isn't either?

No, I doubt you do. You'd run out of fingers.

I asked about you making that point to a fellow lefty about it not being Racist, when they called Trump racist.

Did you ever bring up that so important to you point, when some lefty was accusing Trump of being "racist"?

 

[Pogo]

Lots of minor quibbles about semantics.

Blatant exposed false comparison fallacies are now "Semantics".

Can't make it up. Busted for unworkable arguments, "oh noes, it's just 'semantics'". Pathetic.

You lefties love to complain about white whatevers, not being fair to black and brown defendants and expect the rest of us to take you seriously,


But if a white guy makes the same complaint, suddenly it's "Racist".

Is it now?
Link?

Want to count up how many times in this thread alone I specifically noted it's NOT "racist"??
Wanna count how many times I pointed out that not only is "Hispanic" not a "race", "Mexican" -- the term Rump actually used --- isn't either?

No, I doubt you do. You'd run out of fingers.

I asked about you making that point to a fellow lefty about it not being Racist, when they called Trump racist.

Did you ever bring up that so important to you point, when some lefty was accusing Trump of being "racist"?

And I just told you I've repeatedly pointed out that there is no "racism" in "Mexican". Can you not read?

Who they were posted to, I couldn't tell ya. I don't use labels as a crutch. If you do, that's your problem.

 

[Correll]

Lots of minor quibbles about semantics.

Blatant exposed false comparison fallacies are now "Semantics".

Can't make it up. Busted for unworkable arguments, "oh noes, it's just 'semantics'". Pathetic.

You lefties love to complain about white whatevers, not being fair to black and brown defendants and expect the rest of us to take you seriously,


But if a white guy makes the same complaint, suddenly it's "Racist".

Is it now?
Link?

Want to count up how many times in this thread alone I specifically noted it's NOT "racist"??
Wanna count how many times I pointed out that not only is "Hispanic" not a "race", "Mexican" -- the term Rump actually used --- isn't either?

No, I doubt you do. You'd run out of fingers.

I asked about you making that point to a fellow lefty about it not being Racist, when they called Trump racist.

Did you ever bring up that so important to you point, when some lefty was accusing Trump of being "racist"?

And I just told you I've repeatedly pointed out that there is no "racism" in "Mexican". Can you not read?

Who they were posted to, I couldn't tell ya. I don't use labels as a crutch. If you do, that's your problem.

And I repeated that I wanted to see it when you were defending Trump from a lefty calling him racist.

Otherwise, you only care when it serves your purpose, which is the lib agenda.

 

[TNHarley]

If only trump would have said "an affiliate of a nationalist radical activist group" instead of "Mexican", none of this would have happened, right?

 

[Pogo]

If only trump would have said "an affiliate of a nationalist radical activist group" instead of "Mexican", none of this would have happened, right?

Right But I'm sure that, despite that, some wag woulda been in to bring in "skin color".

 

[Pogo]

Lots of minor quibbles about semantics.

Blatant exposed false comparison fallacies are now "Semantics".

Can't make it up. Busted for unworkable arguments, "oh noes, it's just 'semantics'". Pathetic.

You lefties love to complain about white whatevers, not being fair to black and brown defendants and expect the rest of us to take you seriously,


But if a white guy makes the same complaint, suddenly it's "Racist".

Is it now?
Link?

Want to count up how many times in this thread alone I specifically noted it's NOT "racist"??
Wanna count how many times I pointed out that not only is "Hispanic" not a "race", "Mexican" -- the term Rump actually used --- isn't either?

No, I doubt you do. You'd run out of fingers.

I asked about you making that point to a fellow lefty about it not being Racist, when they called Trump racist.

Did you ever bring up that so important to you point, when some lefty was accusing Trump of being "racist"?

And I just told you I've repeatedly pointed out that there is no "racism" in "Mexican". Can you not read?

Who they were posted to, I couldn't tell ya. I don't use labels as a crutch. If you do, that's your problem.

And I repeated that I wanted to see it when you were defending Trump from a lefty calling him racist.

Otherwise, you only care when it serves your purpose, which is the lib agenda.

I don't defend people, let alone labels. I defend logic, fair points and honesty.
Grow up.

 

[TNHarley]

If only trump would have said "an affiliate of a nationalist radical activist group" instead of "Mexican", none of this would have happened, right?

Right But I'm sure that, despite that, some wag woulda been in to bring in "skin color".

indeed. A black woman could purposely dump a hot coffee on him and he get mad, say "damn woman look where you are going" and get called a racist, homophobe, hitler, stalin, chavez and he hates Indians.
Basically, its the same as the Obama haters in 08, except on crack.

 

[Correll]

Lots of minor quibbles about semantics.

Blatant exposed false comparison fallacies are now "Semantics".

Can't make it up. Busted for unworkable arguments, "oh noes, it's just 'semantics'". Pathetic.

You lefties love to complain about white whatevers, not being fair to black and brown defendants and expect the rest of us to take you seriously,


But if a white guy makes the same complaint, suddenly it's "Racist".

Is it now?
Link?

Want to count up how many times in this thread alone I specifically noted it's NOT "racist"??
Wanna count how many times I pointed out that not only is "Hispanic" not a "race", "Mexican" -- the term Rump actually used --- isn't either?

No, I doubt you do. You'd run out of fingers.

I asked about you making that point to a fellow lefty about it not being Racist, when they called Trump racist.

Did you ever bring up that so important to you point, when some lefty was accusing Trump of being "racist"?

And I just told you I've repeatedly pointed out that there is no "racism" in "Mexican". Can you not read?

Who they were posted to, I couldn't tell ya. I don't use labels as a crutch. If you do, that's your problem.

And I repeated that I wanted to see it when you were defending Trump from a lefty calling him racist.

Otherwise, you only care when it serves your purpose, which is the lib agenda.

I don't defend people, let alone labels. I defend logic, fair points and honesty.
Grow up.

Honesty?

But you can't admit that you have NOT been bothered about the oh so important distinction between ethnicity and race when one of your fellow lefties was calling Trump a racist over this.

SO, that settled and moving on,

my point stands,


In both examples the claim is that the ethnic divide makes the jury or judge unable to be fair and impartial to the defendant.


You lefties DO have a long history of claiming the former, but suddenly when the exact same logic is applied to a situation with a brown judge and a white defendant, you lefties suddenly realize that it is "racist".


THe comparison is valid.

You lefties need to explain what the difference is, other than partisan advantage.

 

[Asclepias]

Blatant exposed false comparison fallacies are now "Semantics".

Can't make it up. Busted for unworkable arguments, "oh noes, it's just 'semantics'". Pathetic.

Is it now?
Link?

Want to count up how many times in this thread alone I specifically noted it's NOT "racist"??
Wanna count how many times I pointed out that not only is "Hispanic" not a "race", "Mexican" -- the term Rump actually used --- isn't either?

No, I doubt you do. You'd run out of fingers.

I asked about you making that point to a fellow lefty about it not being Racist, when they called Trump racist.

Did you ever bring up that so important to you point, when some lefty was accusing Trump of being "racist"?

And I just told you I've repeatedly pointed out that there is no "racism" in "Mexican". Can you not read?

Who they were posted to, I couldn't tell ya. I don't use labels as a crutch. If you do, that's your problem.

And I repeated that I wanted to see it when you were defending Trump from a lefty calling him racist.

Otherwise, you only care when it serves your purpose, which is the lib agenda.

I don't defend people, let alone labels. I defend logic, fair points and honesty.
Grow up.

Honesty?

But you can't admit that you have NOT been bothered about the oh so important distinction between ethnicity and race when one of your fellow lefties was calling Trump a racist over this.

SO, that settled and moving on,

my point stands,


In both examples the claim is that the ethnic divide makes the jury or judge unable to be fair and impartial to the defendant.


You lefties DO have a long history of claiming the former, but suddenly when the exact same logic is applied to a situation with a brown judge and a white defendant, you lefties suddenly realize that it is "racist".


THe comparison is valid.

You lefties need to explain what the difference is, other than partisan advantage.

Your comparison is a logical fallacy and no one has to explain anything to you. You need to go get educated instead of soliciting explanations you obviously lack the intellect to understand.

 

[OldLady]

I can provide countless links of liberals saying this....that white judges and jurors aren't fair to black defendants. Overwhelming evidence of this being claimed.

And libs....well....they believe it.

So....how can they then blame Trump for thinking his judge might be racially biased towards him???

Is this epic hypocrisy on the left? Or....are ONLY white judges and jurors capable of being biased??? One of the two must be true.

HUSSSSHHHH, bucs! The Donald doesn't want to talk about this ANY MORE.

 

[Pogo]

Honesty?

But you can't admit that you have NOT been bothered about the oh so important distinction between ethnicity and race when one of your fellow lefties was calling Trump a racist over this.

On the contrary, I've pointed it out repeatedly in this thread from the beginning. That and the other myriad fallacies, such as that who one's ******* parents are has jack shit to do with whether a fraud case can proceed. Such as the OP's strawman of juries with judges, with races and ethnicities, with "Mexican" somehow morphed into "Hispanic".

ALL of which remain untouched. Read 'em and weep.

SO, that settled and moving on,

my point stands,

As demonstrated it does not so much "stand" as "plummet".
Prove me wrong. Now.

In both examples the claim is that the ethnic divide makes the jury or judge unable to be fair and impartial to the defendant.

That's the OP's claim, and it's been handily deconstructed. Go read my posts from the beginning of the thread and learn how it's done. Thank me later.

You lefties DO have a long history of claiming the former, but suddenly when the exact same logic is applied to a situation with a brown judge and a white defendant, you lefties suddenly realize that it is "racist".

"You lefties"?

I am a committee of one, Gomer. You understand the concept of "one"? Doesn't seem you do.

And again, nobody brought up "Brown" until Mac tried to slip it in earlier today. And I immediately called him out on it. Nor did Rump even call the judge "brown", nor did anyone else. Nor, either, did Rump call himself "white". So there's simply no racial dynamic going on here, as I've pointed out over and over. and over.

Again prove me wrong. Prove ANY of that wrong, including my allusions to my own posts.

THe comparison is valid.

You lefties need to explain what the difference is, other than partisan advantage.

You illiterates need to learn to READ. After which you need to learn the difference between "reality" and "the shit you pull out of your ass and pretend it's a real thing".

 

[Correll]

Honesty?

But you can't admit that you have NOT been bothered about the oh so important distinction between ethnicity and race when one of your fellow lefties was calling Trump a racist over this.

On the contrary, I've pointed it out repeatedly in this thread from the beginning. That and the other myriad fallacies, such as that who one's ******* parents are has jack shit to do with whether a fraud case can proceed. Such as the OP's strawman of juries with judges, with races and ethnicities, with "Mexican" somehow morphed into "Hispanic".

ALL of which remain untouched. Read 'em and weep.

SO, that settled and moving on,

my point stands,

As demonstrated it does not so much "stand" as "plummet".
Prove me wrong. Now.

In both examples the claim is that the ethnic divide makes the jury or judge unable to be fair and impartial to the defendant.

That's the OP's claim, and it's been handily deconstructed. Go read my posts from the beginning of the thread and learn how it's done. Thank me later.

You lefties DO have a long history of claiming the former, but suddenly when the exact same logic is applied to a situation with a brown judge and a white defendant, you lefties suddenly realize that it is "racist".

"You lefties"?

I am a committee of one, Gomer. You understand the concept of "one"? Doesn't seem you do.

And again, nobody brought up "Brown" until Mac tried to slip it in earlier today. And I immediately called him out on it. Nor did Rump even call the judge "brown", nor did anyone else. Nor, either, did Rump call himself "white". So there's simply no racial dynamic going on here, as I've pointed out over and over. and over.

Again prove me wrong. Prove ANY of that wrong, including my allusions to my own posts.

THe comparison is valid.

You lefties need to explain what the difference is, other than partisan advantage.

You illiterates need to learn to READ. After which you need to learn the difference between "reality" and "the shit you pull out of your ass and pretend it's a real thing".

1. I just reviewed the first couple of pages, and at no point did you argue that Trump was not being racist.

1b And semantics re: Mexican/Hispanic noted already.

2. Yeah, I saw some of that. Semantic games.

3. You are not a committee of one. YOu are a standard Lefty partisan. THe point stands.

4. Mexican/hispanic/brown, nothing but word games. This is about partisan advantage. Concerns about racial/ethnic differences were valid when it served your lefty agenda, such as in the Zimmerman case and suddenly are not now when the person complaining is Trump.

 

[Pogo]

1. I just reviewed the first couple of pages, and at no point did you argue that Trump was not being racist.

Outright lie.
Roll tape.

You actually think that "Mexican" is a race?

--- post 14 (page 1)

In any event that's got no relationship here because (a) "Mexican" is not a race, nor does it have any such Klan history, and (b) A ******* JURY IS NOT A JUDGE.

--- post 24 (page 2)

"Hispanic" is not a race. Neither is "Mexican".

---- post 31 (page 2)

---- shall I go on?

Proved YOU wrong. Liar.

b And semantics re: Mexican/Hispanic noted already.

Oh yes. Attempted fallacies proven to be invalid are now "semantics". I gotta write that down. Under "pathetic".

The fact remains, Rump said "Mexican", not "Hispanic", and neither one describes a "race".

Prove me wrong.

3. You are not a committee of one. YOu are a standard Lefty partisan. THe point stands.

Another outright lie.

4. Mexican/hispanic/brown, nothing but word games. This is about partisan advantage. Concerns about racial/ethnic differences were valid when it served your lefty agenda, such as in the Zimmerman case and suddenly are not now when the person complaining is Trump.

Quote me on this "Zimmerman". Because the only "Zimmerman" I've ever posted on is Abraham ZImmerman witnessing a lynching in Duluth and relating the story to his son known as Bob Dylan, who worked it into a song.

Prove me wrong. You're on a roll.

 

[Correll]

1. I just reviewed the first couple of pages, and at no point did you argue that Trump was not being racist.

Outright lie.

b And semantics re: Mexican/Hispanic noted already.

Oh yes. Attempted fallacies proven to be invalid are now "semantics". I gotta write that down. Under "pathetic".

The fact remains, Rump said "Mexican", not "Hispanic", and neither one describes a "race".

Prove me wrong.

3. You are not a committee of one. YOu are a standard Lefty partisan. THe point stands.

Another outright lie.

4. Mexican/hispanic/brown, nothing but word games. This is about partisan advantage. Concerns about racial/ethnic differences were valid when it served your lefty agenda, such as in the Zimmerman case and suddenly are not now when the person complaining is Trump.

Quote me on this "Zimmerman". Because the only "Zimmerman" I've ever posted on is Abraham ZImmerman witnessing a lynching in Duluth and relating the story to his son known as Bob Dylan.

Prove me wrong. You're on a roll.

1. Nope. You were all about denying the contradiction between past lefty behavior and current lefty behavior. YOu were trying to say it was not a double standard because of whatever.

2. People are often sloppy with ethnic/racial terms. These are distinctions without a difference. YOu are just trying to distract from the fact that you lefties are trying to operate a double standard here.

3. Nope. You are here carrying water for the Left, trying to have it both ways, so that current Race Card play can continue for the moment, till the next one.

4. Cute the way you pretended to misunderstand and think that I was talking about you specifically instead of the hypocritical left in general. (with regard to Zimmerman trial)

And by "cute" I mean dishonest.