Paul Ryan Admits the Ugly Truth!

Post Reply New Topic

From:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... story.html
Concerning Donald Trump and his comments about "the Mexican judge."

So, basically, Ryan admits that Trump is a racist but that his racism is not incompatible with GOP policy...



That's a pretty damn damning comment on GOP ideology, if you ask me.

With Democrats rejecting white supremacist nonsense it shouldn't be surprising that the GOP welcomes them with open arms, even if they're uncomfortable being the openly racist party. They won't admit where they stand because they know they need to make progress in gaining support from ethnic minorities, but they won't do even the slightest to earn that support.

Ryan is saying that the GOP is anti-immigration, but that Trump is racist.

Is "anti-immigrationism" the same thing as "racism"?

Some claim that the former is a code word for the later, and obviously many individuals are anti-immigration for racist reasons, but many folks want to wall off immigrants for non racist reasons. So I dont think that you can say the two things are the same thing.

Every politician who gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar ALWAYS starts out with the non-denial denial response of "that you all are showing your partisan bias by accusing me!" before the mounting evidence forces them to first- make a straight denial ( I didnt do it) before they finnally have to put their hand on the Bible and cop to admitting to wrongdoing.

Nixon would talk about the Post "showing it's liberal bias" in the early days of the reporting about the Watergate Break In.

So lets do a thought experiment.

What if Trump had said "this judge is a Democrat who is obviously showing his partisan bias by persecuting me"? Never mentioned the guy's ethnicity. Just his party (dont know if the Judge IS a Democrat, but lets just say that he is).

How would you react? How would everyone else react?

Probably not with the same outrage.

Both leading candidates may well end up campaigning from prison cells it looks like!
And one could imagine Hillary playing the partisan persecution card as well if she gets into deeper stuff about emailgate.

So one could argue that Trump is no different than Nixon complaining about how "the Post is showing its Liberal bias". Though saying that "Trump is just like Nixon in Watergate" is damning with faint praise to say the least.

You could say that all Trump is doing is finding a reason that the judge would be biased against Trump- and Trump is famously anti immigration- and the Judge is of Mexican extraction- so all Trump is doing is saying that ergo the judge is likely biased against me. Its no different than saying "the judge is a Democrat", or "is a member of the ACLU",or whatever.

Yes -Trump is desperately grabbing for straws-but that doesnt make him racist. Desperate yes. Possibly corrupt yes. But not racist.

Trouble is this- it makes Trump LOOK racist to drag race into it.

Its bad enough that Trump has to grasp for straws, but picking a racial straw to grab shows that he either IS racist, or that he has the poor judgement to make himself look racist. Either way it shows that he is worthless as a politician, and does not qualify to run the nation.

No.

There's this thing called integrity that allows judges (and others) to do their jobs fairly despite being latino, democrat, whatever.

The social contract depends on a assumption of goodwill and integrity between the people of that society.

Trump, seems to assume that NOBODY has integrity. That's wrong (whether we are considering race, party affiliation, etc.).

If we are past the point of assuming people are acting with goodwill and integrity, we are lost.


BUT, you're missing the real point of the thread here. Look at those quotes again. Ryan literally says that inspite of Trump being a racist, he's a guy I can work with.

From this you MUST conclude that GOP policy is compatible with racism. It might not be racist, BUT is certainly cannot be nonracist either, or Trump (the racist) would oppose it.

That's a pretty sh***y message for any nonwhite voters out there. And I doubt it's something Ryan wanted to make known.

I'm sure that's not how he intended to be interpreted either, but sometimes when people speak they give away more of what they really think than they intended to.

Sometimes being part of a cause makes for strange bedfellows. I want a smaller government because I think it would be better for everyone, some people want a smaller government because they're racists and think it would interfere with them less; the existence of the racists for small government does not make me a racist by extension, just as racists in the Republican party do not make that party racist.

So many stories about how Hispanics hate Trump.

How Trump pinatas are very popular in Mexico (so people can bash Trump).

Isn't Trump right that many Hispanic people hate him, and might be biased towards him?

If you're suggesting the American judge might be biased because people in Mexico dislike Trump I'd be curious to see you make that argument without implying that he's biased on the basis of his ethnicity. You can squirm and flip and flop but it won't distract from the rhetoric coming from the chump and his supporters.

The news tells us that American Hispanics hate Trump.

"Hispanics Really, Really hate Donald Trump"
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... nald-trump

So, Trump seems justified in thinking that Hispanics might be biased towards him.

Educated people know "Hispanic" is not a race.

Ryan should of said that Trump has "ethnic prejudice".

If he was genuinely justified he'd have grounds to request the judge be recused. So far his legal council has not attempted this, but instead has commented rather favourably regarding the judge. If they have any grounds to suggest the judge has been anything but impartial they would have pursued it already.

At the end of the day this boils down to Trump knowing he's pissed off a large number of people and now he's whining about hypothetical consequences that could result without any real evidence that they have.

At the end of the day his ethnic background is irrelevant to his ability to perform his job impartially - to suggest otherwise is textbook racism. Shillary is grinning with glee, the longer this trumper tantrum lasts the worse it reflects on Trump, Trump supporters and the GOP for enabling the former two.

Just out of curiosity, how is Trump calling attention to the ethnicity of the judge different than "found guilty by an all white jury" type statements that typically don't get challenged?

You are most likely correct.

However, that's speculation. They may be saving it for appeal.

There is an entirely other angle here too.

Some suggest John Roberts was influenced by fears of the court being seen as politically biased in his decision to uphold the ACA.

So, Trump might simply be attempting to put such fear into Judge Curiel -- to help his case.

I don't think any Trump supporters actually care.

I would actually like to have both Hillary and Trump up on a stage and every bit of dirty laundry come out and then let them explain their sides so everyone knows exactly whatwhat in the hell they are getting when they vote. And you know at the end of the day, Hillary supporters are still going to vote for Hillary and I'm still voting for Trump and life goes on.

For me, the judge has a conflict of interest and should not be on the case.

Actually, the burden is on you to determine how they are similar.

The Supreme Court has ruled against prosecutors blocking minority jurors from serving:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-cou ... 1464016709

The prosecutors were the racists in this case. They acted to ensure that no minority juror would serve.