ya dog


also, as i understand it i'm allowed a 'dumb mother****er' if it's followed or preceded by content

Two things on this:
One, the judge certainly had it coming. He belongs to a lawyer's organization known as "La Raza" - literally "The [Latino] Race" - whose sole purpose is to benefit Latinos, presumably, given that law is a competitive enterprise, at the expense of others. If a white judge was making weird decisions in a case about Obama, and he belonged to an organization called "The [White] Race" that sought to privilege white lawyers, would you consider comments justified? I would.

Two, I don't agree with the comments and find them inappropriate. It seemed to me to be a desperate move to discredit the judge in a fraud civil action he was losing. But Is it racist to suggest that people belonging to four iorganizations exclusive to a race for which Trump is seeking to block illegal immigration/deport might have an animus toward Trump? I don't think it is. Take away the judge's membership of these racist organizations and I think Trump's comment can be called racist. With it, I think Trump is justified in taking a swing, even if it's technically inappropriate for president to do.

Lol I made this post before seeing the edit. DENIED on the the D M.

You are not entitled to presume this.

That’ll show him!

Omg I was about to add something to Rococo's point but TS did it in a better fashion than I ever could.

Everybody poorly describes Mexicanjudgegate and it's a shame because the reality is way more damning.

Trump didn't just say, yeah, that guy won't do a good judge job because he's Mexican.

He said, yeah, that guy is Mexican and there's no way he won't tear my ass up because of how racist I am towards Mexicans. Have you seen all my build-the-wall-to-keep-out-the-rapists stuff? I'm racist as ****! That dude would have to be a robot to deal with me.

You'd think TS would've avoided this banana peel.

OK, let's not presume. From their website:
They literally call themselves "The [Latino] Race" and their explicit stated goal is to support one particular "race".

It's the "at the expense of everyone else" part that's a problem there.

yeah, no filter over there

Yes, support them as they deal with racists like yourself!

Why is this so hard to understand? Aside from the fact that your lackeys seem to think "buy low sell high" is some intellectual apex.

For those keeping score at home:

Not Racist -

1. Not selling/renting homes to black folk because they're black.



Racist -

1. Having an organization that supports minority Latino lawyers when A Wild Toothsayer appears during their travels in this wacky racist world.

You seem to think that this name is some sort of big deal but La Raza is a very, very common phrase used in the name of thousands of businesses in California. It is a professional bar association of which there are literally thousands of in the country. Also just to be clear it has no association with the political advocacy group NCLR which also is often referred to as La Raza and was an association that was claimed falsely at the time of this controversy.

Being a member of a professional association related to race/ethnicity/religion is not exactly uncommon either - there are many associations that are specifically for aiding Jewish and Christian lawyers, are they also prejudicial groups?

Trump's reason for thinking he might be biased was entirely that he thought a Mexican judge wouldn't be able to do his job properly because he was Mexican. That is almost textbook racism.

If it's "because they're black" it's certainly racist.
If it's "because the local black demographic in 1973 had far higher rates of property damage and rent arrears", then it becomes a viable business decision - albeit a callous one - and the claims of racism get murkier.

Would Trump have rented to black people more than whites, or even excluded whites, if the statistics were reversed? Almost certainly I would think. He's a callous bottom line businessman, not a racist.

So when white people become 49.9% of the US, they can start organizations called "The White Race" that only helps white people, and it's not racist, but at 50.1% it is?

Latinos are the largest ethnic group in Calfornia by the way, surpassing whites. Are they now racist in your view? I'm probing the absurdity of your logic with these questions.

im against using business decisions form 45 years ago to paint him as a racist

So what's your take on him saying a Mexican judge was incapable of being impartial because he's Mexican two years ago?

So, I've requested that toothsayer's exile from this forum be reinstated. I was willing to give this a shot, but I don't see it working out when 90% of his content is in support of essentially white supremacist talking points and I don't think this is ever going to lead to the kinds of conversations I think are actually worth having here.

There is some room for conversation about racism and, as I've said before, even to challenge its importance in contemporary politics. But I don't want to spend every day moderating high-volume mostly uninteresting derails about whether La Raza must be presumed to be racist while even directly racist acts which violate anti-discrimination law must not be called racist, plus the exciting sidebars about arabs and so on where every opportunity to impugn non-white groups is taken.

And even if it's all just contrarian trolling, it's too disruptive.

I have temp-banned TS while I see what the admins want.

that it was a completely ridiculous thing to say

Amazing. This was even better than I expected.

And presumably you think it's a piece of evidence that could be reasonably used to argue that he is racist then?

I dont see the point in making a new politics forum for the people too racist to post in the old forum if you are gonna ban them when they make racist posts

When the admins decide to not exile Toothsayer can we start talking about the JQ?

It is not my intention to have a politics forum exclusively for the people "too racist to post in the old forum" (but not all previous exiles are equivalently problematic in my view). It is my intention to have a politics forum that's a bit more diverse than the old one, but that's not exactly the same thing.

Toothsayer is now, in fact, exiled. And no.

i dont want to get in the same spot as tooth, so i will just say this

trump knows his approval rating with latino americans is somewhere between 18-30% and thats with cuban american's who greatly support him included. so he can be making a generalization that a mexican american judge can be biased against him more often than not

the way he worded it is obv ignorant and racist.

again i wasnt defending the comments i took hombrage with the 1973 dealings as evidence anddont have much interest in defending something stupid and ridiculous he said

You didn't answer my question. I'm granting that people make racist decisions all the time without being a racist. I suggested that sometimes people might make racist decisions because they are cynical opportunists that don't care about the negative effects of their decisions on other people. Hence I'm not assuming that Trump's long-ago racist business decisions or more recent racist political decisions mean that he is a racist - i.e. I'm not painting Trump as a racist. What I'm asking you is if you think making racist decisions, even if driven by selfishness or lack of concern for others instead of animus towards people of another race is still worthy of condemnation?

I guess where I'm going with this is that having racist attitudes seems like a bad thing to me. But so does being a selfish opportunist who doesn't care about other people. And making racist decisions is wrong. So does the distinction you are using here really matter that much? If the best defense you can give of Trump is: he's not a racist, he just doesn't care that his personal benefit comes at the expense of minorities, then I don't know, it doesn't really seem like much of a defense.

Merely asking and then accepting in good faith an answer isn't racist, but that's not birthism was.

It's not that he's just too racist, it's that he's overly verbose with lowbrow bull**** masquerading as deep philosophical rebellion.

Like, years ago I explained how,

Black Power means Black emPowerment.

White Power means White supremacy.


I know that words are hard but ****, they're not that hard, and it's absolutely insufferable to have a kiddie game clown reinventing the racist wheel, thinking he's dropping a sweet gotcha.