A couple more things about Trump and Judge Curiel
My “note” at the end of this post has engendered quite a bit of discussion about Trump’s remarks accusing Judge Gonzalo Curiel of bias. First, let me repeat a bit of what I wrote there:
Trump’s “racist” comment about the judge was to say that he had “an absolute conflict” because he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino law association…It’s a question of Trump’s attacking someone’s identity as a member of an ethnic group rather than sticking to that person’s specific beliefs.
I want to emphasize a couple of things that I didn’t point out in the previous post. The first is about Trump’s phrase “absolute conflict.” Trump didn’t say “possible conflict.” He used the word “absolute,” which does not admit of any doubt, equivocation, or gradation. It indicates something complete, given, absolute.
Whatever Trump actually meant by this in the recesses of his brain, we have to assume he said what he meant and he meant what he said, which is that Mexican heritage acts as an absolute bar to hearing any lawsuit connected with Donald Trump, an assertion that is (to use a phrase I ordinarily detest) un-American and goes against the principles on which our laws are based [see NOTE* below]. It is identity politics, a sort of mirror image of what the left does, which is to claim (for example) that a privileged white man cannot have an unbiased opinion about a black person but is automatically racist.
Unfortunately, we have traveled quite far down that road anyway, because statements like that one about white male bias are made every single day. That doesn’t make them right, and it doesn’t make Trump’s statement right, either.
What should Trump have said (not that he ever would have done it this way)? Say what the judge has done that he thinks is biased. Ruling against the Great Trump is not enough. Say exactly what organization the judge is part of and mention some of the biased positions it holds. Describe how all of that might tie in to the case the judge is hearing. It wouldn’t take long to do this; doesn’t have to be a book. But unless it’s done, and if you say instead that some ill-defined bias is due to the judge’s “Mexican heritage,” or just some Latino law association that “supports Mexico,” you haven’t done the job nearly well enough and you open yourself to charges of racism that seem very very plausible.
And by the way, for what it’s worth, that Latino law group is not the same one as the larger La Raza left-wing radical organization nor is it affiliated with it. The most you can say (and it isn’t all that much) is that the law group’s website contains a link the other group.
I think that there is a good possibility that Trump’s statements about Judge Curiel have hurt him more than most of the un-PC things he’s said in the past. You know why? Because the subject he’s talking about is not a principle such as illegal immigration or PC-speech or the like, it’s about a case””that of Trump University being accused of fraud””in which Trump already is looking bad. To imagine a judge ruling against him in that case without being the least bit biased against him is not difficult. It’s easy. So this charge against Curiel looks like the usual Trump practice of throwing the book at anyone who might thwart him.
One more thing—have you noticed many Republicans in Congress and elsewhere trying to thread the impossible needle of Trump-support? Support him and you’re tarred with everything he says and does. Don’t support him and you’re a traitor. It hurts every single one of them in some way; there is no good path out of it. It is potentially very damaging to the right as a whole (actually, I think it’s already been damaging to the right as a whole).
Just as one example of what I mean—Chris Christie is reduced to defending Trump’s Curiel remarks by saying that Trump has “a right” to express his opinion. Well, duh! Of course he does, and everyone else has a right to listen to Trump’s opinion and draw the conclusions they think are logical.
So far Ted Cruz isn’t having any of it, by the way. Probably because Cruz knows that he’s already regarded as persona non grata by a lot of his colleagues, he doesn’t need to worry about being called a traitor to the GOP cause. Been there, done that. So when asked about whether he would ever endorse Trump, he simply stared in silence.
[NOTE: One area in which the legal system is not color-blind is in jury selection. Because of a long history of black people being excluded from juries that are supposed to be of the defendants’ “peers,” there has long been an effort to have juries be composed of an ethnic and gender mix that reflects the community. Whatever you think of that effort, it is very different from claiming that any particular one juror would be automatically or absolutely biased because of his/her race, ethnicity, or gender. It is an effort at inclusion of the previously-barred, not exclusion of a certain group.
Lawyers, however, get a certain number of what’s called “peremptory challenges” in the process of jury selection, which means they can get a prospective juror dismissed for any reason whatsoever—unless those challenges show a pattern of exclusion based on race. It’s a legally complex issue—too complex to go into here—but see this article for more.
The point with juries is not that people of a certain race are automatically biased, it’s that people of a certain race or origin should not be excluded from a jury for that reason, and that actual bias in terms of specific action or beliefs has to be demonstrated or at least suggested (particularly for non-peremptory challenges), rather than bias based on a person’s identity.]
[ADDENDUM: Please see this comment of mine and read the links, particularly this one which describes the history of the legal association of which Judge Curiel is a member.]
[ADDENDUM II: I have noticed that some people seem to be confusing La Raza with the Reconquista groups. There is some overlap, and you can read up yourself on the extent of the affiliation, which La Raza now denies (rightly or wrongly). I have done some reading on it, and while I think there is no question that some Reconquista advocates must also be members of La Raza, the two groups officially focus on and advocate different things. Reconquistas are the Hispanic supremicist groups who explicitly want to re-take the lands they feel the US took away from Mexico. La Raza is an advocacy group that is more analogous to the current leftist advocacy makeup of the NAACP.]
This stupid episode may cost Trump the election. MSM will never let up on this. Ryan and McConnell calling out Trump on this. More grist for the mill.
I am still not a Trump fan but Hillary would be 1,000 times worse.
I am sick about this.
And by the way, for what it’s worth, that Latino law group is not the same one as the larger La Raza left-wing radical organization nor is it affiliated with it. The most you can say (and it isn’t all that much) is that the law group’s website contains a link the other group.
But they just so happen to share the name “The Race”. Just pure coincidence … A LAWYER’S group chose a name “The Race” that just happened to coincide with a far-left, anti-American, insane group called … “The Race”. “The Race” … for lawyers …
I mean, really. This ain’t rocket science. Heck, it ain’t even model rocket science.
It’s a legally complex issue, too complex to go into here,
The judicial system’s use and abuse of racial and ethnic considerations is not complex. It’s inconsistent. There’s a big difference. One cannot argue that Sotomayor should sit on the SCOTASS because she’s a latina and then reject the notion that a latino judge might be biased. Chances are that that latino judge was given the seat specifically because he would be biased – i.e. exercise his “empathy”.
This is all akin to art critics trying to tell people that they “don’t understand” the artistic genius of presenting a urinal or a blank canvas as “art”. People understand. They understand quite well.
progressoverpeace:
No, it’s not rocket science. It’s language.
“La Raza” has a generic meaning in Spanish, and a historical one. It is not limited to the left-wing group you know as “La Raza”—that group appropriated the phrase. One can use the phrase independently and without having reference to them at all.
See this, for some of the history. See also this for more of the history.
The law group is very different from the larger left-wing radical group:
Pop
Read this nuttiness from the website of the San Diego La Rasa Lawyers Ass’n
“Many people incorrectly translate the name, “La Raza,” as “the race.” While it is true that one meaning of “raza” in Spanish is indeed “race,” in Spanish, as in English and any other language, words can and do have multiple meanings. As noted in several online dictionaries, “La Raza” means “the people” or “the community.”
Translating our name as “the race” is not only inaccurate, it is factually incorrect. “Hispanic” is an ethnicity, not a race. As anyone who has ever met a Dominican American, Mexican American, or Spanish American can attest, Hispanics can be and are members of any and all races.
The term “La Raza” has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as “the people” or, according to some scholars, as “the Hispanic people of the New World.” The term was coined by Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos to reflect the fact that the people of Latin America are a mixture of many of the world’s races, cultures, and religions. In contrast, the term “Hispanic” has its origins in the 1970 U.S. Census, and the term “Latino” was officially adopted in 1997 by the U.S. Government in the ethnonym “Hispanic or Latino.”
Mistranslating “La Raza” to mean “the race” implies that it is a term meant to exclude others. In fact, the full term coined by Vasconcelos, “La Raza Cé³smica,” meaning the “cosmic people,” was developed to reflect not purity but the mixture inherent in the Hispanic people. This is an inclusive concept, meaning that Hispanics share with all other peoples of the world a common heritage and destiny.”
I, for one, don’t buy for one minute this neutral and cosmic meaning of La Raza.
This is all Back to Blood.
Cornhead:
Why do you label it “nuttiness”? That is the history of the phrase. It’s not the history of the left-wing group, the group of which Curiel is NOT a member. The left-wing group appropriated the phrase, but it did not invent it. The phrase had a prior history and it has other uses and meanings.
See my comment above yours, as well.
Progressoverpeace:
You just can’t grasp the concept made by Neo, or just won’t accept it.
Quit whining about Sotomayor, she isn’t running for anything, and it doesn’t help Donald. Donald can’t admit his error, or that his remark was racism writ large.
He owns it. Republicans are saddled with it, thanks a lot.
progressoverpeace:
The “it” I was referring to in that phrase you quoted is not the same “it” you’re talking about. I was NOT talking about “The judicial system’s use and abuse of racial and ethnic considerations.” I was talking about the issue of race and jury selection, in particular race and peremptory challenges, which is indeed a complex issue (I provided a link rather than explain it in detail).
You write that “The judicial system’s use and abuse of racial and ethnic considerations…[is] inconsistent.” I agree that the political arguments around the “judicial system’s use and abuse of racial and ethnic considerations” are “inconsistent.” However, those inconsistent and contradictory politics are not embedded in the law itself.
The law goes against the politics in the case of Sotomayor, for example. The law does NOT argue that “Sotomayor should sit on the SCOTASS because she’s a latina”—that is something the law is very against as an argument, traditionally, but it’s a very popular political argument on the left.
There is a distinction in theory. In practice the two have blurred. I completely agree that in practice there is a tremendous inconsistency. And the right, in supporting Trump here, is inconsistent as well.
I am not inconsistent. I reject the Sotomayor argument and the one Trump offers. I say base accusations of bias on actual bias, not identity. I say let’s approve judges not based on their ethnicity, either, but on their record and their brilliance.
What moderate named KKK group links to the real KKK group, and expects people to give them the benefit of doubt on what their biases are?
Trump is right to call out ethnocentric organizations and their potential for bias.
Lyle:
There are tons of legal organizations for ethnic groups, and those organizations were formed mostly in the 60s and 70s to support lawyers who were members of those groups and who were under-represented in the legal profession. If Trump meant to call out all such groups as a bad thing, he should have done that. The existence of such groups has nothing to do with whether members are automatically or “absolutely” biased.
But of course he didn’t mean to call out all such groups. He meant to criticize a judge whose judgment in the Trump U. case wasn’t to Trump’s liking.
As for the link—websites have plenty of links, and they are mostly informational, as in “here are some organizations that might be of interest to our readers.” Resources. Links do not mean support or membership. This blog has plenty of links to groups I don’t necessarily agree with in all respects, as do just about all blogs and websites.
Quit whining about Sotomayor, she isn’t running for anything,
It seems that you don’t understand the impact and meaning of the empathetic latina’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Her nomination and confirmation were based almost exclusively on her powers of empathy – i.e. her gender and ethnicity and her enthusiasm in basing her decisions more on these traits than on the Rule of Law. When the Senate confirmed her (and we can thank Lady Lindsay for even letting her get a vote in committee to be allowed to make it to a floor vote) they established in our system the viability and validity of purely ethnic or gender-based decisions, without any input from the Rule of Law.
You might think that this is no big deal but I can assure you that it is. The fact that Sotomayor was never “running” for anything makes it all that much worse. It’s one thing to have people vote along these lines – which is perfectly fine and acceptable, people are allowed to vote for anyone for any reason they like – but it’s quite another for procedures in law to follow those lines.
As to the pretzel-twisting argument that the two groups just happened to share the same name … I don’t buy that for a second and I doubt that you can really find many who do. You can call a skyscraper a “chair” because it’s flat on top and people can sit on it … but most people understand that just because you can sit on something doesn’t make it a chair.
Even neo’s own quoted article about the “La Raza” lawyer’s group admits that its name is “anachronistic”, meaning that that article, itself, understands the problem with the name. If the name is fine then why would an article defending it call it “anachronistic”?
progressoverpeace:
I see you haven’t responded to what I wrote about the Sotomayor situation as a political one versus a legal one.
Nor is the argument about the two groups using the phrase “La Raza” “pretzel-twisting,” whether you characterize it as that or not. The history and purpose of the two groups speaks for itself. And see the comment of mine right about this, as well.
Neo
These are lawyers. They well know the commonly understood meaning of the phrase “La Raza” and the group mostly commonly associated with the phrase.
This would be like saying the KKK Lawyers Association of San Diego has nothing to do with the KKK.
And lawyers are mostly liberal.
This group is surely mostly liberal and in full Back to Blood mode.
I don’t have a problem with minority or immigrant groups forming associations. What counts is what they do with them. Cementing a group into perpetual victim status is bad. Helping clarify the differences between their culture and the main culture so they they can fit in is good. If you have never lived in a different country, you may underestimate how many little things you have to learn. Lots of people rely on those who preceded them to fill in the blanks.
I’ve mentioned Dagger John before the tremendous work he did to get the Irish assimilated in America. Google him at City Journal.
If Curiel associated with this legal group to help immigrants understand how our rule of law works, then good for him. it is also important to remember that Schwarzenegger appointed him to the bench because of the excellent job he had done in prosecuting Mexican drug cartels.
Trump needn’t call out all the groups when his case only has to do with one specific group… La Raza.
Seriously, why are you defending people linked with La Raza?
I’m in agreement with neo with the exception of a few points.
“by the way, for what it’s worth, that Latino law group is not the same one as the larger La Raza left-wing radical organization nor is it affiliated with it. The most you can say (and it isn’t all that much) is that the law group’s website contains a link the other group.” neo
Actually, as more information becomes available, the interconnections between Judge Curiel’s “San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association” and the virulently racist “National Council of La Raza” are starting to emerge. See this and this.
Furthermore;
As for La Raza more accurately translating as “the people”, that term always denotes group exclusivity. If any group designates itself as “the people” what is everyone else? Clearly NOT ‘people’.
Both articles cited contain numerous supportive links.
“the subject he’s talking about is not a principle such as illegal immigration or PC-speech or the like, it’s about a case”
More than that: it’s about a person.
The lawyers could have called their group the San Diego Hispanic Lawyers’ Association but they didn’t.
That’s all you need to know.
Cornhead:
They are also Hispanic lawyers. They know the meaning of the word that is NOT restricted to the radical group.
You and I, being non-Hispanic, are probably more familiar with the more radical use of the phrase. For Hispanics (especially older ones), it is different, and the legal group is clearly different from the other more radical group, and I doubt there has been any confusion before this because the legal group probably doesn’t have that high a profile except among Hispanics in the area (and Hispanic lawyers at that).
And no, La Raza is not the same as KKK. La Raza is a leftist group, but it advocates nothing like the principles the KKK advocates (La Raza is pro-immigrant and pro-amnesty). Also, as I’ve pointed out many many times in this comments section, the phrase “La Raza” has a noted and strong generic and historic meaning that has nothing to do with the radical group. KKK only has to do with the radical group of that name; whatever the phrase’s original history, it has no other meaning to virtually 100% of Americans.
What’s more, the law group was founded in 1972 (as one of the articles I linked stated), and the national “La Raza” organization (as opposed to a local one in Arizona) was founded in 1973. So the law group (and its name) slightly predated the national group La Raza.
Now, you might argue that the legal group should have changed its name in recent years to avoid confusion. But as I said, I don’t think there was any confusion or notoriety about the name till now.
I see you haven’t responded to what I wrote about the Sotomayor situation as a political one versus a legal one.
Neo, I addressed that very point in my response to OM. The Sotomayor confirmation established the validity of purely ethnic/gender-based decisions as legitimate criteria in selecting a judge or in a judicial decision. In that, it has moved from being merely political to being established in our judicial procedures. And, as I have mentioned before, this sits in direct opposition to over three millenia of history of Western jurisprudence. The Torah, 3500 years ago, warned “neither shalt thou favour a poor man in his cause.”
As to actual law and racial/gender considerations … there are tons of inconsistencies. There are even meta-inconsistencies, as we see in the laughable theory of “disparate impact” as it is applied.
The leftists, who rammed through race-based laws to affect their affirmative actions ideas, found that some of these laws were being struck down as being race-based (as was the clear intention), so the left reformulated those laws and procedures to stop mentioning race but to pick out economic and other criteria in order to have the procedures not mention race but to act almost uniformly along their chosen racial lines – i.e. intended disparate impact. Then, these same leftists, as they gained power in the judiciary, came up with the idea of looking for this “disparate impact” in other laws and procedures (with intention having no bearing, at all) and have used that argument to strike those laws and procedures down (see Sotomayor and her laughable decisions and reasoning in the firemen case) … but they never apply this same “disparate impact” argument to their own laws and procedures which were specifically and intentionally designed to have disparate impact.
I could go on and on about these sorts of things in our laws and judicial decisions. The law is rife with them and with many other inconsistencies.
La Raza is an ethnocentric supremacist group just like the KKK.
Lyle:
La Raza hasn’t lynched anyone.
There is no comparison in terms of history.
i commented elsewhere and you touched on int at the end regarding jury selection. however, there is some hypocrisy (as usual) when dems s1ay men cant comment on abortion, or ‘old white males’, or saying a mostly white jury/judge convicted.
The Dems want to carve up the electorate based upon race. Trump is playing into their hands.
Only way he wins now is if there is a massive blue collar Dem vote for Trump in Midwest states.
neo,
I don’t argue La Raza has lynched anyone. They are an ethnocentric supremacist organization just like the KKK though. Not every KKK white supremacist has killed someone. Who has David Duke murdered? Is he somehow less of a white supremacist because he hasn’t lynched someone?
progressoverpeace:
You are wrong.
A confirmation by Congress does not establish a legal principle at ALL. It is a purely political act. The legislature is not the judiciary. I’m sure you know that.
And of course the members of Congress who voted to confirm Sotomayor did not state they did so purely because of her ethnicity or gender, but insisted she had other independent qualifications.
And of course there are inconsistencies in the law, particularly as it has “evolved” in recent years under the left’s influence. I have critiqued those things on this blog (for example, disparate impact). But those are violations of the foundation of our legal system, “evolutions” of it that run against its principles of equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome. I would never argue that the law is perfect as is. I am talking about the principles on which it is based, which I think the left violates continually.
I don’t know whether you really fail to understand my point, or whether you’re merely engaging in sophistry.
Funny how people go out of their way to assume that “La Raza” is “obviously” meant to be a dog whistle to pro-Latino superiority/racism (to paraphrase).
I know enough French to know that words/phrases have different connotations than a literal word for word translation. I have to assume the same of Spanish, or any other Latin based language.
These are probably the same people who are upset at how the left want the Washington Red Skins to change their name, or want the Confederate Battle Flag removed from SC state capitol building and state grounds, or want statues of Civil War Generals to be removed. To the left it is “obvious” that these are dog whistle symbols to racism. To those who oppose the left on this, they believe the left are putting the racial connotation where it was not intended.
Plus é§a change, plus c’est la méªme chose!
https://translate.google.com/#fr/en/plus%20%C3%A7a%20change%2C%20plus%20c%27est%20la%20m%C3%AAme%20chose
Neo said (1): he had “an absolute conflict” because he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino law association…
Neo said (2): he said what he meant and he meant what he said, which is that Mexican heritage acts as an absolute bar to hearing any lawsuit connected with Donald Trump
where did the point that ANY member of La Raza has declared themselves to favor latino race, and Mecha?
the WHOLE point of such a organization is to favor things by race under the pretense that all whites are racist therefore all latinos have to push back to “balance” it.. With the designation that being Latino will cause you to make other choices legally than one would if one was chinese, white, american indian, black, etc.
The group supports “equality, empowerment and justice” not for all attorneys in San Diego – only for “Latino attorneys.”
IE… help your race against whom? and which race is not allowed such action? which race is not even allowed to like themselves as if all of them came from germany 1933?
then there is the point that the judge gave $1,500 as a scholarship to an illegal alien. to quote Lords article:
so Obvioulsy, this judge does not care about the legality of crossing a border without permission, and that rewards should not be restricted if such a illegal crossing is done by a latino/latina
It’s OK for Judge Curiel and a small army of California judges and lawyers to belong to the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association – a group openly discriminating against non-Latinos – but it’s not OK for a California judge to belong to the Boy Scouts – the Boy Scouts! – because “the group discriminates against gays.”
It doesn’t get more racist than that. Lord
[edited for length by n-n]
Neo
Lawyers are fully tuned into both language and perception. That’s what they do.
They didn’t change their group’s name. That says it all.
Lyle:
People are comparing La Raza to the KKK. I am saying they are very different in the degree of their racism and their history. And they are. They are not equivalent at all.
There is no question that La Raza is a leftist group, in favor of amnesty and all sorts of accommodations for Hispanic people in this country. As such, it is something like the NAACP in its present-day manifestation (not its earlier one). That does not make it anything like the KKK though, and the history does matter.
By the way, I believe you are confusing La Raza with the Reconquista groups. There is some overlap, and you can read up on the extent of the affiliation, which La Raza now denies (rightly or wrongly). The Reconquista groups are the supremicist groups.
Neo,
They are both ethnocentric supremacist groups, history be damned. It’s a free country and you can believe whatever you want.
Just got this from WaPo:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/07/under-heavy-criticism-trump-says-he-wont-talk-about-judge-in-trump-university-case-any-longer/
It looks like Trump doesn’t like the backlash he is getting.
Haha… “there is some overlap”.
NEO: And by the way, for what it’s worth, that Latino law group is not the same one as the larger La Raza left-wing radical organization nor is it affiliated with it. The most you can say (and it isn’t all that much) is that the law group’s website contains a link the other group.
Wrong…
With more than 300 affiliate organizations in 41 U.S. states, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) is currently the largest national Hispanic civil-rights and advocacy organization in America.
they are all part of the huge number of FRONTs for international communism, all a facet of the same end. or havent you noticed that they ALL dovetail the same goals as put forth in the commiterm meetins and the inernational meetings i said to read that coordinates all the actions of the fronts to move to the same ends to make them more forceful.
just imagine 20,000 well funded organizations or more, all coordinated to one goal, a international communist world without borders, without freedom, without capitalism (including jewish extermination and their protectors), and more
of course, why read the minutes of those coordinating meetings or even try to know they are in existence.
From Horowitz the ex communist:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1217
i cant post more, too long – there is 100 years of history you guys ignored in learning and in incorporating…
Artfldgr:
La Raza is of course a leftist group. I have said that. The legal group is somewhat leftist in that it is one of many lawyer-ethnic-identity groups of the 60s and 70s. I was in law school back then, and I remember. Not all of them are Communist fronts. However, as time has gone on, most of them certainly have a leftist leaning, as do most lawyers.
Lyle:
You can believe whatever you want.
I make a concerted effort to have my beliefs be based on facts.
“La Raza is a leftist group, but it advocates nothing like the principles the KKK advocates (La Raza is pro-immigrant and pro-amnesty).” neo
Given that assertion, perhaps you’d care to explain this; “Por la raza todo, fuera de la raza nada”
“For the race, everything, outside the race, nothing.”
If that isn’t a racist sentiment that easily matches the KKK…
“Here is an excerpt from a 2010 CIS Backgrounder that takes a look at the political evolution of “la raza”.
A judge who belongs to the same association as the plaintiffs. A judge who belongs to an organization boycotting Trump’s businesses. That also paid the Clinton’s $675,000 for a few speeches. A judge whose behavior is at best highly questionable. A judge whose association just happened to adopt in its name “the people”… and that is strongly supportive of illegal immigration. An Obama appointee.
Recusing himself from the case was a no-brainer.
Artfldgr:
There are tons of legal organizations for different ethnic groups and even for women. They have never been found to be discriminatory. In fact, unless things have changed a lot since I was in law school, plenty of people who are not of those groups used to be part of them (just as many whites used to be members of the NAACP and still are). Such groups are not racist per se.
Neo,
Your assertions about La Raza aren’t grounded in fact. On this you’re a believer and not a truth seeker.
There’s a 2008 interview with Janet Murguia, the president of La Raza, here, in which she’s asked about the name of the group:
She also said this:
It’s worth the time to take a look at the group’s website. It’s obvious they’re trying to play down the “La Raza” — they use “NCLR” (for National Council of La Raza) instead throughout. There’s even a photo of a man waving an American flag.
Lyle:
Just because you say so? You’ll have to do better than that. I have cited history, I have cited facts (and given links and quotes), and have explained why the KKK analogy is different.
You have done nothing of the sort.
Lyle:
By the way, I have no “belief” about La Raza. I couldn’t care less about whether they are a racist organization or not. There are plenty of organizations that are. They are certainly a leftist organization. I have no reason to defend them and no desire to, except that I like to stick to facts.
And by the way, I’d rather what Trump had said had been based more on facts rather than his typical desire for revenge against someone who had ruled against him. I’d rather Trump were a better candidate than I find him to be. So far, he is not. The only dog I have in THAT race is that I’d like him to be better, because I hate the idea of Hillary winning.
Geoffrey Britain:
As far as racist comments by members of La Raza—as I’ve said, there is overlap and OF COURSE some of the members are indeed racists. But these are not official positions of the group.
And yes, some people objected to the phrase “La Raza” for the group because they thought it implied racism, which in fact it does, in my opinion. But I am talking about what they actually do—the work they actually do, not whether some members are racist. I am sure they are.
See also “Ann’s” comment above, and the quote there.
“La Raza” has a generic meaning in Spanish, and a historical one. It is not limited to the left-wing group you know as “La Raza”–that group appropriated the phrase. One can use the phrase independently and without having reference to them at all.
So we are all free to use the swastica
It fits exactly the same as you said
By the way… Keep saying crapola like that and I will start listing out the people involved that created it…
When you want to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing
Be sure to make their after something like and safe
The people will think your OK
The left has a 100 plus year history of doing exactly that
Out did you forget that liberal used to be capitalist and now it’s communist???
Stupid… Real stupid
No wonder no one has ever prevented them
Other than the experienced who can’t convince the tubes
But then again… How do you teach what they ignored all their lives to near the very end they start to wake up????
It’s like trying to learn how to use a fire extinguisher after the fire started… Too late
And not knowing who to listen to that does know!!!
Geoffrey Britain:
As I wrote in my first post (yesterday) on the subject, there could be some valid objections to Judge Curiel. But the one about his “Mexican heritage” was not one.
You write:
Surely you’re not suggesting that an Obama appointee should automatically recuse him/herself from Trump case? That sort of requirement would be the destruction of the entire legal system.
By the way, when the Trump U. case began, Trump was not even a candidate.
Artfldgr:
Actually we are all free to use the swastika, and others are free to draw their own conclusions as to what is meant by it.
The swastika is an old worldwide symbol that the Nazis appropriated. However, the Nazis changed its direction (before that it went the other way). And in the Nazi form, it is ONLY connected with Nazis. Many Hindus and Buddhists, for example, still use the other original form.
“La Raza”—as I have already explained—in the form “La Raza” does not just have the association with that one group that uses it. It has a lengthy history in exactly that same form—“La Raza”—and is used by many other groups.
Neo, why debate these guys on this one anymore?
They seize on a “By The Way” comment on how “La Raza” as used by a political group and “La Raza” by a legal group may be different, as if that were a major point of your article.
It is a distraction, which is exactly like what Trump is doing / encouraging.
It is his shiny object of political distraction away from the facts of his case.
It is also a demonstration (yet again) that Trump is comfortable in the realm of racism (implied, if not direct), that he hopes to pass off as being unbound by “political correctness”.
Perhaps Trump has a great case to make, but we cannot help that he is as clumsy at making it as he is at explaining any of his policy ideas, or how his statements seemingly opposite of those ideas fit together.
We are left with what he provided (as we seemingly always are), which is close to nothing, and thus, its “begs the question” nature leaves us doubtful as to his claim’s credibility.
Much of this discussion focuses on ethnic associations of lawyers. Lawyers, being advocates, are expected to take sides. Judges; no.
I’m a member of the Virginia bar. California is real “progressive,” but we’re a bit old-fashioned. Take a look at item C, below, and explain how membership in an organization whos motto is “For the race, everything, outside the race, nothing” does not give the appearance of impropriety.
RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA
Section III. Canons of Judicial Conduct for the State of Virginia.
Canon 2. A Judge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All the Judge’s Activities. –
A. A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
B. A judge shall not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment. A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge shall not testify as a character witness.
C. A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin.
Artfldgr:
By the way, your insults don’t really enhance your arguments.
While everyone is busy arguing amongst themselves, isn’t the larger point how all this plays with independents and swing voters? I don’t think many of them are going to be rationalizing away Trump’s statement.
KLSmith:
Only two groups of people are trying to rationalize it away. The first is Trump supporters. The second is reluctant Trump supporters who are desperate to make sure Hillary is not elected.
I am desperate to make sure Hillary is not elected. But I don’t call myself a Trump supporter—not yet—and I cannot rationalize what he said.
Published in 1925, La Raza Cé³smica (The Cosmic Race) is an essay written by late Mexican philosopher, secretary of education, and 1929 presidential candidate, José Vasconcelos to express the ideology of a future “fifth race” in the Americas; an agglomeration of all the races in the world with no respect to colour or number to erect a new civilisation: Universé³polis.
The phrase, “La raza cé³smica”, in English “the cosmic race”, embodies the notion that traditional, exclusive concepts of so-called “race” and nationality can be transcended in the name of humanity’s common destiny. It originally referred to a movement by Mexican intellectuals during the 1920s who pointed out that so-called “Latin” Americans have the blood of all the world’s so-called “races”: European, Asian-descended native Americans and Africans, thereby transcending the peoples of the “old world”.
Vasconcelos also used the term when he coined the National Autonomous University of Mexico’s motto: “Por mi raza hablaré¡ el espéritu” (For my race the spirit will speak).
From his works
“Hitler, although he disposes of absolute power, finds himself a thousand leagues from Caesarism. Power does not come to Hitler from the military base, but from the book that inspires the troops from the top. Hitler’s power is not owed to the troops, nor the battalions, but to his own discussions… Hitler represents, ultimately, an idea, the German idea, so often humiliated previously by French militarism and English perfidy. Truthfully, we find civilian governed ‘democracies’ fighting against Hitler. But they are democracies in name only”. (“La Inteligencia se impone”, Timon 16, June 8, 1940)
Cap’n Rusty:
California, however, thinks such associations are fine.
There are ones for black lawyers, female lawyers, etc. Most of them began in the late 60s or early 70s.
I actually agree with the Virginia rule. But California does not. And of course Trump is not citing any such rule, because in California there is none. Nor is he citing the Virginia rule and saying it should be adopted by other states (although I think that would be a reasonable position, actually).
Progressoverpeace:
I fully understand your argument regarding Sotamoyor. As Neo has probably explained, it isn’t a finely nuanced point regarding what Donald said repeatedly.
Dancing around and bringing up other problems is deflection and distraction from Donald’s behavior and the damage Doanld does to the country.
Break over, back to work.
If djt and his legal team are convinced Curiel is biased because he is of hispanic heritage, the proper place to address this issue is in the courts. But then, it feels so good to spout off, make accusations, and do the donald thing for the cameras and microphones to the applause of his fans.
Neo,
You haven’t successfully argued that La Raza is NOT an ethnocentric supremacist group. You’ve just pointed out that they haven’t lynched anybody like the KKK… a point I never asserted.
Robert Byrd was a KKK member. There’s you some history.
Art
You passed the Godwin’s law threshold of commenting several comments ago. Trump should have handled this better. Those of you who support him should be wishing that your man was more interested moving the country in a better direction than this dumb posturing over a civil fraud case.
GB: “Recusing himself from the case was a no-brainer.”
The case has nothing to do with immigration, La Raza, racially identified professional orgs or any of the hundred other subjects brought up here. Again, let’s consider the case of a conservative judge who is, say, a member of the NRA. Are you saying he should recuse himself from all cases that aren’t gun-related but have a plaintiff or defendant that, completely unrelated to the matter at hand, advocates for gun control?
neo: indeed. I believe you’ve made your position clear and I believe I understand it. You do an excellent job pointing out information to your commenters but some of them seem to want to keep their Trump blinders on. Sometimes the back and forth between commenters or that directed toward you, while interesting, I think loses sight of this – our perceptions, as it regards the candidate aren’t as important as how it plays to the wider audience. Because you are some what undecided (?), your opinion is more important than those that are already in one camp or the other. Because obviously it will be the swing voters and undecideds that determine the election outcome.
No offense intended to anyone.
I’m not insulting
Stupid is stupid
Is an insult when it isn’t
And if you think that you just woke up and know this stuff going back to the minutes of the meetings and the coordination that funded then and such… The wrong…
It’s been in front of you all the life and you only caught on late in life…
How about those who knew it from the other side all their lives???
I’m sorry but your missing a lot and using what they wrote about themselves as proof when the basis of their thinking Is lying to powerBy the way… The dates am coincide with the internationals orderes n the 1960-1979s. After the others before set the groundwork
His about looking that stuff up????
Then again, as long as you don’t you can deny anything
Like the fact that you can only take over a nuclear state by such games
You have denied classic historical clues that insiders use and know
Which is the point of picking them in the first place
Your all about now and denying history and using bad sources
You really think that they will openly declare themselves from day one so when you read you can say ah ha???
That’s what I mean by stupid…
That’s like expecting an embezzler to tell you on the job interview
You have to study the sources and the abuse of trusted stuff
Like Stalin in Spain getting the West to do his work under the idea of antifascism… Or that the founder of this current thing was a fan of the fascists… Where do you think they fled to??????
They fled to South America… Duh…
You need to read more s to mechanisms and lineage of thought
You dont find it odd that social justice was Nazi and race and note it’s Spanish and races???
The founder of the modern movement was a fan of Hitler
And your point as to the KKK is wrong too
The KKK was the dirty part of the Democrat party
The weather underground was the dirty part of the lid/SDS
Rote Zora was the bombing faction of the modern feminists
I can wrack of about 20 of these examples
So look for their dirty arm, it’s separate so it caught they can deny
You really have to read water would give you the chops to know how this works and the stuff they don’t tell you in the press release
Even less that the scope is so large and across so many countries that are coordinated
When my friend cut his finger off because he didn’t use a piece of wood
I called that stupid too
It you ever find out what the missing
Your gonna say his stupid it was too ignore the signs screaming at you!!!
But not before..
Before comes the indignation
But whatever I say, complimentary or not
This thread makes it very clear you dont want to believe
You refuse to
And even use their selection of an excuse to have an excuse
And we will all learn I it the hard way
By the way the founder of this and other reformations of old stuff to wrap sht in sugar to be palatable knew this would fool you!!!
It’s what you do when you are constructing a trap
No??
The military regime led by Francisco Franco had an ideology with racist components.[5] The soldiers who took part in the coup considered themselves to be of a superior race: the National Day in Francoist Spain was called Déa de la Raza (“Day of the Race”) and Franco himself wrote the script for a movie entitled Raza (Race). They believed that their superiority granted them the right of conquest over other “inferior races”, which included the Republicans and all others who opposed the military coup. The pioneer of this ideology was the military psychiatrist Antonio Vallejo-Né¡jera[1](ch. 2) who directed the Psychiatric Services of the Military (los Servicios Psiquié¡tricos del Ejército).[6][5] Vallejo-Né¡jera trained in Germany, where he studied and greatly admired the Nazi ideology. His interpretation of race, however, had more political, cultural, and psychological components than ethnic ones, though it did maintain antisemitic beliefs.[5] Vallejo-Najeré¡n’s theories were compiled in his books, such as Eugenesia de la Hispanidad y regeneracié³n de la raza (Eugenics of Hispanicity and the regeneration of race), where he redefined race as “spirit”:
Neo Neocon: “Only two groups of people are trying to rationalize it away. The first is Trump supporters. The second is reluctant Trump supporters who are desperate to make sure Hillary is not elected.”
There’s a third group: Those who dislike the Donald, knows hes apt to make idiotic and hateful remarks, would rather see him as president over Hillary for practical reasons as well as not rewarding a criminal with the highest office who also thinks Trump may have a point in seeking the judges recusal out of a possible lack of impartiality. Trump will more than likely loose the election. Im not emotionally tied to his candidacy by any means. I’m just looking as to whether or not his argument has any merit and at first look I agree. I do appreciate your producing the opposing argument though.
Artfldgr:
Well, of course you think you are correct when you call me “stupid.”
Others will judge the merits or lack thereof of your statement on that point. But for you to deny it is an insult is—well, similarly to what I said before, this does not enhance your argument, either. It was most definitely an insult, and to deny that fact makes no sense (and also, by the way, does not enhance your argument).
When defeated they went to South America and with funding started reforming things… Much like the Frankfurt school… But outside your radar unless you know this
“Race is spirit. Spain is spirit. Hispanicity is spirit…For this we must soak ourselves in Hispanicity…to understand our racial essences and differentiate our race from others.
Tons more
Oh boy is there tons more
But don’t expect them to tell you
Find it if you dont know it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Harry the Extremist:
One can think the judge is biased for other reasons. But those are not Trump’s reasoning when he alleges that Mexican heritage” is an absolute bar.
Trump would also have had to describe the bias in the actual decisions. Merely ruling against him does not suffice as bias.
Kyle:
It is YOU who has not proven they ARE such a group. You haven’t even tried. No doubt there are people of that persuasion in the group, but if you actually read the group’s material that’s not what it works on and focuses on.
“I am talking about what they actually do–the work they actually do, not whether some members are racist. I am sure they are.” neo
The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association has a history of illegal alien support and “has repeatedly backed extreme anti-enforcement, pro-illegal immigrant speakers and causes, according to its website”. (http://sdlrla.com/) It funds scholarships for illegal aliens and also exclusively endorses candidates of Mexican ancestry. “The organization invited activists [to speak] who opposed efforts to defund welfare payments to illegal immigrants, backed in-state tuition for illegal immigrant children, and called for ending California’s English-only program for public school children.”
How’s that for a litany of actions?
“Surely you’re not suggesting that an Obama appointee should automatically recuse him/herself from Trump case?” neo
Of course not, the judge being an Obama appointee is just one more element in the circumstantial evidence that gives credence to Trump’s accusations of bias.
Again;
A judge who belongs to the same association as the plaintiff’s law firm.
A judge who appointed that law firm to the case.
A judge who belongs to an organization boycotting Trump’s businesses. That also paid the Clinton’s $675,000 for a few speeches.
A judge whose behavior is at best highly questionable.
A judge whose association just happened to adopt in its name “the people”… and that is strongly supportive of illegal immigration.
An Obama appointee.
A judge who deliberately released court records which provided the media with the names, locations, and contact information of the plaintiffs and witnesses in the case.’
A judge who has set the first Trump University hearing for the first day of the GOP convention.
“The case has nothing to do with immigration, La Raza, racially identified professional orgs or any of the hundred other subjects brought up here.” Bill
It has everything to do with those issues because it goes to the judge’s bias, demonstrated through his behavior;
1) The law firm appointed by Judge Curiel made VERY large contributions to the Clintons.
2) Judge Curiel deliberately released court records which provided the media with the names, locations, and contact information of the plaintiffs and witnesses in the case.’
3) Judge Curiel has set the first Trump University hearing for the first day of the GOP convention.
Victor Davis Hanson on La Raza:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420142/america-one-nation-indivisible
“The pedigree of the term La Raza is just as incendiary as that of the Confederate battle flag.”
Who likes to wave the Confederate Battle Flag? Can you guess? Can you guess?
… maybe the KKK.
The more they bash Trump; the more I’m coming around to actually liking the guy.
For years, I – as a white guy – have been told that I couldn’t possibly “understand” something because I wasn’t black, Latino, etc.
Hmm, now Trump says the same thing and they get their panties in a bunch!
Geoffrey Britain:
I know all that.
But while those are pro-illegal-immigrant actions, and leftist actions, they are not racist per se nor do they constitute evidence of bias on the part of the judge who is a member of that group. To have bias you don’t just have membership in an organization that works for those things. If you did, then (for example) judges who are feminists could not rule on rape cases with a male perp, and neither religious Christians nor gay people could rule on gay marriage, Jews could not rule on cases involving freedom of speech for Nazis, and on and on and on and on. The entire judicial system would break down.
As for the Obama appointment, it’s basically the same thing. You can’t say that it is relevant, or no conservative could rule on a case that liberals oppose. The truth is that all judges have biases and that those biases could affect their decisions. But to say it has in fact affected a decision is a very different thing, and must be proven. First one must give the evidence of bias, and that evidence can’t just be “He/she ruled against me! Wah wah!”
As I’ve said several times now, a case could be mounted using that format: cite the bias, give the reasons for it in the case of the judge, and be specific. The reasons can’t just be based on affiliation with a group that most of the Hispanic lawyers in LA belong to.
I’m sure you’ve heard liberals alleging that every decision that goes against them and was by a conservative judge is of course biased. Not true. And it’s not true that Obama appointment is evidence of bias, either (although an Obama appointee is certainly going to be a Democratic, and perhaps a leftist, and perhaps biased against conservatives), anymore than being a Bush appointee is evidence of the opposite bias.
charles:
You and many others have as a motive for supporting Trump that he’s just as bad as the people you hate, and that he’ll do to them what they did to you.
Sorry if I don’t want to join in on the revenge-fest and support a person I find reprehensible.
“So far Ted Cruz isn’t having any of it, by the way.
That can’t be a tough decision. First and foremost, Cruz is a man of principles. Secondly, he’s a lot smarter than I am, and even I can see that Cruz’s political future wouldn’t be improved by supporting Trump. Thirdly, he can’t stand the guy. There aren’t that many times in the world of politics when you get rewarded for standing by principles and treating a jerk like a jerk.
Charles Kesler writes in the Spring issue of the Claremont Review of Books:
“It’s no coincidence that the two loudest, most consequential socio-political forces in America right now are Political Correctness and Donald Trump.”
That is the distilled essence, people.
Which is why Neo, Paul Ryan and the huge righteous host of non-Democrats who come down against Trump may be in the right, but the country, the Constitution, will be destroyed by the Clintons and their Democrats, never to recover. Good-bye, SCOTUS. Hello, PC Forever.
“Never” is a pretty long time. What happens when you don’t keep your eye on the ball and the count is 3-2: Strikeout. Done. Ballgame’s over.
Now is not the time to shut Trump down. Over some “Mexican” judge, who, As Geoffrey Britain has detailed, is smudged and not spotless.
Nice work.
It is 90% certain that Hillary will be elected.
I grieve for our lost country.
The Claremont Review is a wonderful publication, BTW. While it is allowed to exist.
The KKK as we all know was the militant arm of the Democrat Party from 1865 on through the next century.
When Hoover got the word from LBJ to shut the KKK down — he could scarcely believe his ears.
With the slightest pressure — it imploded in 18 months.
The Civil Rights conflict in the Jim Crow South consisted of Liberal Northeastern Democrat activists — locking horns with die-had Conservative Democrat activists.
Neither side would have any truck with the Republicans, of course.
The intra-party nature of that ‘civil war’ is stepped on by.
&&&&&
The SOLE and only reason that La Raza has no history of lynchings — is because it’s a MINORITY.
The second that La Raza True Believers gain authority — they go on to the SAME PAGE as the Jim Crow KKK of the 1950s.
I give you the San Jose riots. Yes, the police authority calling the shots is totally politicized.
http://pamelageller.com/2016/06/san-jose-police-chief-who-admits-allowing-attacks-on-trump-supporters-is-affiliated-with-la-raza.html/
Living in the California sea — there is NO QUESTION that both Mexican factions are supremacist. None.
&&&&&&
I must dispute the notion that Mexican-Americans were under-represented at the California bar half-a-century ago.
For, the number of Mexican-Americans needing legal services were wildly under-represented, too.
They came in way behind Blacks and Whites.
Since being an attorney is a license to coin money — you can be assured that the SECOND enough clients showed up — newly minted attorneys would soon follow.
Which, of course, is exactly what happened.
We now have such a GLUT of licensed attorneys — that many take to YouTube to burn their law degrees and bar licenses.
NO-ONE will hire them at any rate of pay.
And they don’t have the finances to launch their own ‘shingle.’
In sum, the market response — at such exalted rates of pay — is snappy.
The Mexican-American bar expanded IN STEP with the demand for legal services… and probably faster.
Which would explain why so many have been caught out ginning up fake litigation — at every point of the compass.
This only happens when attorney ‘talent’ is in surfeit.
Can we please get a little perspective here? On the one hand, we have Trump with some bone-headed comments. On the other hand, we have Hillary Clinton with criminal acts, corruption, repeated lies, and abuse of power. The difference between the two is stark, absolute, and crystal clear.
Yankee – “criminal acts, corruption, repeated lies, and abuse of power”. Trump is guilty of the middle two, and has promised the other two.
Nick, if that is true, then please name them. Be specific with actions, dates, and events. Real things, nothing hypothetical. In contrast, Hillary Clinton has been the perpetrator of some very suspicious activity, starting with cattle futures trading in 1978, all of the numerous political scandals during Bill Clinton’s Presidency, and her direct role as Secretary of State with Libya, the Benghazi fiasco, and her secret e-mail server. You don’t have to like Trump, but there is no comparison.
Frog,
IMO both hrc and djt have less than zero intentions to pay attention to the rule of law, aka the Constitution. I see the shrew queen and the donald as 2 sides of the same coin. Some argue that trump is an unknown and that there is a microscopic possibility that he might appoint a Constitutionalist to SCOTUS, might actually defend the borders and enforce immigration laws, might refrain from restricting legal access to firearms, etc.
However, there is nothing in his past to indicate he would follow through on any issue that we on the right view as bedrock principles. Personally, I could not look at myself in a mirror if I surrender to vote for either side of the hrc/djt coin. And Mrs. parker would make me sleep in one of the guest bedrooms for at least a decade or until death we do part.
Corruption – Trump has never been bought, but has bought candidates for their influence and support.
Repeated Lies – Too many to enumerate. Admits that his attacks, statistics, and proposals are all up for grabs.
Criminal Acts – Trump promised to order troops to kill civilians. He hasn’t demonstrated a good enough understanding of our governmental system to avoid criminal acts.
Abuse of Power – Trump warned the Speaker of the House that he’d have to pay a price for failing to endorse him. He supports government overreach through eminent domain. He’s implied the need for expanded libel protection in the context of suppressing criticism of him.
neo,
You’re correct that the factors I cite are not direct evidence of bias. However, when circumstantial evidence reaches a high enough level, it can become probative. In my judgement, the associations Judge Curiel maintains along with his actions reach that level. When there’s enough smoke, that there is fire present is not debatable, unless of course one wishes to engage in willful denial.
Nick,
I can’t disagree with anything you state. I also have no doubt that the country shall never recover if Hillary Clinton is elected. I fully recognize that Trump may well spell disaster but recovery from a despot is possible. Whereas, once entrenched, there is no recovery from ideological fanatics who insist that we eagerly agree that 2+2 = whatever they decide, from moment to moment.
Good-bye, SCOTUS. Hello, PC Forever.
In 1988 Democrats could have despaired for being shut out of the white house for all but four of the last 20 years. But they didn’t. They came back and won in 1992.
This isn’t our last election. Unless we despair and elevate someone we OWN who is unfit, authoritarian, and will destroy conservatism for a generation We’ll survive HRC if she’s elected and we’ll live to fight another day. Supreme Court Justices don’t live forever.
Trump is unfit.
Nick, everything you wrote about Trump is either non-specific or hypothetical. Regarding Hillary, at Benghazi, Libya on September 11th, 2012, Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were killed. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was blamed for instigating this attack, and ended up in jail. From 2015 onward, we have known definitively from Trey Gowdy’s investigation that Hillary Clinton lied about this matter (namely, the e-mail she wrote at that time).
The FBI is right now conducting an investigation into the matter of Hillary Clinton’s secret private e-mail server. We know now that she ignored or over-rode the usual State Department security protocols. Common sense tells us that any data on that server has very likely been compromised by hackers from foreign governments (namely Russia and China). Furthermore, negligent or careless mishandling of classified information is a serious crime in and of itself.
In short, with Hillary Clinton, she lied about a terrorist attack, and she compromised national security. Both are extremely serious. And we haven’t even gotten into all the money she received for speeches, and whether donations made to the Clinton Foundation were done for political favors. And before all that, there were numerous political scandals during the 1990s, her husband’s own impeachment trial, and even Susan McDougal going to jail for contempt instead of testifying.
To sum up, real people are dead. Other real persons around Hillary have been convicted of crimes and have gone to jail. American national security has been compromised because of her. These are all verifiable, demonstrative facts about Hillary.
Yankee
You don’t have to like Trump, but there is no comparison.
Trump has never had his own army. I’d propose we don’t give him one.
GB,
I understand your POV, even indirect association with La Raza makes one test the air for smoke. But, circumstantial evidence (real or imgained) does not a case make in court. Again, as I posted earlier, the arena to fight the allegation of bias on the part of Curiel is the courts. The fact that djt and his legal team have not already, as in months ago, pursued this course indicates to me, perhaps not to you, that trump is trying to bluff his way through the lawsuits in the kangaroo court of public opinion on his yellow brick road to the Oval Office.
To GB and others who have decided to hold your nose with vise grips good luck if your candidate wins in November. But I suggest you keep those vise grips handy, you are going to need them during your hoped for the rule of the donald.
Bill, put on some heavy boots next time you comment here. We don’t like lightweights. You may not have the same visceral abhorrence at what Hillary will do, but at least Trump posted a list of 15 SCOTUS candidates who were pretty acceptable. Hillary will have 3, maybe four nominees and may have a Democratic senate, so she’ ll have a majority of Leftists on the Court, All decisions 6-3 or 7-2 for the next 30 years. Affirmative action will be a permanent fixtuxe, children won’t be people until born after nine months (my first was born at 7 months), we will mourn dead apes more than dead kids, guns and especially ammo will be highly regulated, black and hispanic felons will be freed from prisons for disproportionality. Colleges will become re-education camps, with most of the blacks assigned to paid athletics.The IRS will know everything about your health and your finances. That’s just part of the domestic effect.
Parker:
Vice grips will not be sufficient; they (GB and others who think) who have voiced doubts about the Donald, are never to be trusted, and always to be watched until actions need to be taken. That’s how tyrants roll.
Yankee,
Perhaps I am one of the donald’s bad, sad, stupid people; but I have not noticed anyone on this blog sing the praises of the shrew queen, let alone say they will vote for her. Sometimes, in dire straits, all one can do is to hold fast to their principles. You and others are obviously of a different POV. Fine, you have your rationale for voting for trump. I have my rationale for voting for anyone other than Hillary-Trump. And no, failure to vote for djt is not a vote for hrc unless one actually votes for the shrew queen.
Frog,
Hey, we’re just talking here. Look, I’m not happy about Hillary either. I’m a lifelong Republican (or at least I was). But I can’t support Trump for the 1,000 reasons I already posted. If you can more power to you.
Would have been nice if the Republicans could have nominated a decent conservative. But they chose to “blow it up”. So I’m out. Either HRC or DJT will be horrible and I’m not voting for either one of them. And I’ll continue to post about what’s wrong with Trump. Because I don’t want him to be President.
Frog:
Once again I ask, who is the “we” you are referring to? Speak for yourself.
Frog,
Trump’s list……. how utterly hilarious!!! I own thousands of acres of ocean front property in Iowa and pigs with lipstick can fly. Can I sell you through my faux university Iowa ocean front acreage and lipsticked hogs? Yes, no? Why not?
OM,
I think your 11:53 comment goes a bit too far. I do not distrust GB and others who have decided to vote for the donald. I simply think they are mistaken in their belief that there is a dimes worth of difference between djt and hrc.
Parker:
I don’t distrust GB or others who will vote for Trump with reservations.
True Trump believers will never trust those who have not been 100% for Trump 100% of the time. Thus lukewarm supporters will be suspected of disloyalty to the Donald.
Dissent or free thought is not allowed by tyrants on the left or the “right.”
Parker (and others),
From time to time, some commenters here have asserted (directly or indirectly) that Trump is either just as bad, or no different from Hillary. That is a false equivalence, and something I try to dissuade others from.
I’m still holding out hope that Hillary does not receive the nomination, and someone like Sanders or Biden does instead. It’s not healthy for the country for someone as openly corrupt as Hillary to be nominated. And if she is nominated, then it will come down to either her or Trump in November. Other options are not realistic.
And if one thinks things are bad now, after Obama and the other Clinton Presidency, then imagine how much worse they could be after a possible Hillary Presidency. What will be left for conservatism to conserve? Every little bit of support may count for something in November. In my case, my vote could help turn a blue state red. When I know that one person will definitely hurt the country, then I have to vote for the other man.
OM,
You posted ” never to be trusted”. Sounds final to me. I strongly disagree with anyone who votes for djt for whatever reason, but I can civilly disagree with the reluctant ones, which I believe includes GB and others.
Parker:
I wasn’t clear in what I tried to say, not unusual for me. I meant that those who are all in with Trump will never trust those who aren’t of like mind.
GB is not a Trump “true believer” in my assessment. He will not be viewed as “reliable’ by the Trump “true believer” type.
The intelligentsia are often targeted by the tyrant.
Yankee,
“What will be left for conservatism to conserve.” Good question. “The nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one.” I would amend this quote to a master or mistress deverves one. Your vote seems to be for another master. I vote neither a master or a mistress.
Neo,
I had said that it is fine for Virginia lawyers to have ethnic associations, but Judges, no. I cited Va. Canon of Judicial Condect 2C, which said “A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin.” Any connection with La Raza whose motto is “For the race, everything, outside the race, nothing” unquestionably violates that Canon.
You reply that California has ethnic associations of lawyers and thinks they’re fine. You agree with a rule against membership in organizations that practice invidious discrimination, but said California has none. And of course I know Trump cannot cite a Virginia rule.
My bad. I should have done more research.
California does have a Code of Judicial Ethics; Canons 2C and 3B(2) provide:
2 C. Membership in Organizations
A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. This canon does not apply to membership in a religious organization.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY:
Membership by a judge in an organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation gives rise to a perception that the judge’s impartiality* is impaired.
The code prohibits such membership by judges to preserve the fairness, impartiality, independence, and honor of the judiciary, to treat all parties equally under the law, and to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
3 B. Adjudicative Responsibilities
* * *
(2) A judge shall be faithful to the law regardless of partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism, and shall maintain professional competence in the law.
Now, I realize that these Canons prohibit membership in an organization which discriminates invidiously against persons who want to join such organizations, and that isn’t at issue. La Razza’s problem is that it’s overtly racist. Although obvious to any reasonable person, I haven’t found a statute or Canon that specifically says it would give the “appearance of impropriety” for a judge to belong to the KKK . . . but give me time.
Meanwhile, there’s also this statute:
28 USC 455(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Trump can move for recusal, which I think would be wise, because it would provide opportunity to lay out the rationale, and also would delay the trial for a few more months.
Cap’n Rusty:
I am relatively sure that the statute does not bar membership in ethnic lawyer organizations even for judges. Such organizations are legion (see this, for example, or this and this, which explicitly accept judges), and members self-select. The groups don’t discriminate in their membership, as far as I know. And their stated goals are not discrimination but inclusion. I have never heard of a case where a judge was considered to be violating such a statute by being a member of a bar association ethnic group like that.
The KKK does discriminate, both in its membership and in its goals.
For those who may not know, Parker’s quote at 12:55 AM comes from Alexander Hamilton. Speaking of which, could it be that Hillary Clinton is the Aaron Burr of this generation?
I could give a rat’s a*s what Trump’s “true believers” think of me. I hold Donald Trump in little regard and if he is elected, will think it a miracle, if he is able to accomplish some good without destroying constitutional governance.
On the other hand, a coherent argument can be made that in the long run, electing Hillary would be best because only by liberals getting what they think they want, will they come to realize what they have wrought.
IMO, that argument fails when liberal denial is considered and, when reflection is given to the historical facts that, the Left never gets less radical and believes that the ends sought justifies ANY means whatsoever that is needed to impose it’s fanaticism upon others.
I think you’ve made a good point about this La Raza not being the same a Reconquista group. But what concerns me is that Trump sounds like a baby or a bully again, crying out that he’s been wronged and using someone’s ethnicity to prove that point. If the guy was Black he would have used that, if he was a Democrat he would have used that. Possibly if he was a Republican white judge he would have found something else… It strikes me as childish and divisive. It is distressing that Trump is using ethnicity since there is so much racial division in this country right now, Obama does it also though he does not sound quite so petulant. I am not sure which is better. But it is not a useful thing and only serves to be divisive and to give the worst Trump followers ammunition. I mean the nefarious “alt-right” who are looking at race and ethnicity first and foremost, almost like a mirror reflection of the far left. At any rate, because this is a lawsuit involving Trump University it just makes Trump look bad and like he is grasping at straws and like he doesn’t care who he insults. This is not a quality I want in my president… That’s the point to me. I don’t even necessarily think Trump is a true racist, like some on the alt-right (though not all but too many) but I think he will use anything he can to “win” or disparage his opponent. Even if it hurts people or damages his cause. That’s the issue for me ultimately.
parker,
That Hamilton quote gave me pause, until… I remembered that this nation’s majority has already chosen disgrace (2008, 2012, and now with Trump and Hillary) and in embracing disgrace has indeed prepared itself for a master. Time will tell whether that master is Trump’s authoritarianism or Hillary’s collective.
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites… In proportion, as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves.
Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.
It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” Edmund Burke
Democracy’s fatal flaw is that it cannot save itself from a majority of fools. A representative republic’s fatal flaw is that it is dependent upon the majority exercising moral self-discipline. Today, far too many Americans are of intemperate mind.
Amazing!
There are several “reluctant” Trump supporters here who are trying to have the rest of us who oppose Trump “own” any consequence of Clinton winning.
They are making the same argument that the hard core originals are making.
Trump’s early string of pluralities carried the day. Trump and his minority of supporters scoffed at the principles the rest of us thought defined the party. They want to redefine the party in Trump’s image, and discard many/most of those principles.
Well they cannot have their cake and eat it too.
We are no longer beholding to a party that barely embraces our principles / ideas.
As a result, we don’t own the outcome of Trump losing.
.
Surely, the “reluctant” Trump supporters see the issues, but when folks point out red flags on Trump, they get brushed aside as if there is no merit or “proof” for a lack of trust with Trump.
But that is precisely the point about Trump! Neither do they!
NOBODY KNOWS!!!
Trump’s whole campaign has lacked consistency and clarity on exactly what he will do. For nearly every… single… issue… that Trump has stated a position on, there is something else to point to where he walks it back, or says something contrary. And that is just the campaign, not including his life prior to.
So all we are left with is his character. Here are some red flags (in no order)…
– We know he is a big time liar, to the point that it is hard to discern truth from tale on a daily basis. Would like to have an objective measure of it, but we don’t, however, we do know he does it readily on small things that there is no advantage whatsoever to him.
– We know he is comfortable hinting at, being coy about or actually threatening action consistent with Authoritarianism.
– We know that he is comfortable with (ab)using the legal and political system for personal gain.
– We know he reacts mercurially and vindictively at a personal level, even with minor perceived disagreements, or “disses”.
– We know he likes to use innuendo, rumors and ad hominem to attack vs making a logical, fact based case in response to challenges or disagreements.
– We know he is comfortable flirting with bigotry, mysogeny, etc. under the guise of not giving in to “political correctness”, promoting his brand of identity and victimhood politics.
– We know he doesn’t feel the need to explain in any reasonable depth his policies and how they would work / be viable.
– We know he doesn’t feel the need to learn in much depth about any of the issues he will be facing, nor heed advice, as he is smarter than them.
– We know he is infatuated with his own “success”, “wealth”, and “winning”, and that this is how he wants to measure himself by.
– We know he never admits error, nor feel the need to apologize for anything.
– We know he likes to time controversial comments to occupy media air time and take attention away from his other failures / problems.
We know many more things, but that’s enough to get the point.
Each one could be quibbled over. Taken as a whole, it is far from a “hypothetical” as it reflects a rather dysfunctional individual.
Cruz used the words narcissistic and pathological. But assume that overstates it… would anyone trust their life savings in a business partnership with a neighbor who behaved that way?
Anyone who says “YES!!!” is not being honest.
The real “hypotheticals” are the WISHES that people are projecting onto Trump. They hope, without solid evidence, that he MIGHT be good, MIGHT be better than Hillary.
But they… don’t… really… know!
His behavior indicates a very real, catastrophic downside possibility. Yet, a good many would say it is a worthy gamble to roll the dice and put that man in charge of the country?
Some recognize that possibility, but then say “Recovery from a despot” is possible – pure balderdash! What is the percentage on that, based on history?
People talk about gulags and marxism and all that crap regarding Clinton. People want to believe all the hyperbole that’s been tossed around for years at the Dems. Time to get real about these specific next four years.
We can see where four more years of a Dem POTUS will lead. The reality is probably much closer to a continued slide towards what we can already see in Canada or Europe. Definitely not good, but We can recover from that.
.
Is this an argument to vote for Clinton? NO!!!
The argument against Clinton, aside from wrong Dem direction, is one of accountability and “reward”. Who really wants to see her get “rewarded” for all her manipulations and corruption on her life long path to the presidency? We all want to see her face proper scrutiny and accountability for the misdeeds we suspect of her. We’d also want her to be accountable during her term. Would she be more like Bill or would she look to dramtically expand the power of the Presidency (making it look more like a Prime Minister in a Parliamentary system)? Probably the worst part of it will be another set of scandals, not unlike under Obama. Sadly, frustratingly, we may never have that accountability.
.
We all face these choices, realistically…
A) Risky gamble on someone whose behavior could lead to catastrophe in the next four years (serious tail risk), with high overall uncertainty generating significant downside. Also, he has low likelihood of meeting any of his (wished for) “promises” (limited upside, or does implement and “unforeseen costs” realized – possible significant downside foreign or domestic), or sudden change of character, toning down rhetoric, reacting/responding with consistency and clarity, and actually being shrewdly pragmatic (minuscule odds, but good upside tail potential) – think of a U-shaped curve, with two spikes, one on each end, the downside one dominating, but the middle flat and downside weighted due to significant uncertainty.
B) Rewarding a probable corrupt life long politician (some downside related to corruption and expansion of power, extremely low catastrophic tail risk from any uncertainty over her behavior) and likely follow Obama’s slide of four more years into “Europeanization” (hurts and can be significant, but recoverable in future elections) – think of a bell curve skewed to the downside. Not good at all, but lower risk. The risk is really in not being able to change course in future.
C) None of the Above – Pick another party to support, and hope everyone else sees the light and follows suit, with the possibility it might win or stalemate the election to be decided by the House – no curve, as it is meant to mitigate / prevent the downside of the above two, and too many unknowns.
We have choices that don’t endorse Trump or Clinton, including write-in, though we may not be able to avoid one or the other getting elected.
B and possibly C might allow an easier path to reconstructing the GOP or an alternative, and set the stage for 2020.
I’ve been trying to think about what Hillary will really want out of the presidency. First and foremost, she wants to be the first female president. That probably means she will pick a few women’s issues to focus on. She will also probably try to keep her greenie creds by staying tough on Keystone. Her other big issue was healthcare, but since Obama has screwed that up so badly, it’s hard to say how she will try to tackle the issue.
On spending and foreign policy issues, Hillary has been letting Obama have the say, and she hasn’t really done much except implement what he and Valerie said. If she cleaned the house of the Obamaites and got some experienced Dem advisors, she might do things differently. She would also probably let the race stuff fade by patting a few black female legislators on the head.
It’s true that she would not appoint conservative judges, but she may try to avoid appointing obviously radical lefties and be content with squishes.
Hillary doesn’t need any more money. Her post-presidency speaking fees will be enough. She also won’t need her cronies to help her get elected. Some of this stuff may scale down. Bill knows that his good ratings are based on the compromises he made, not on ideological purity. Hillary will be totally legacy focussed and may avoid hard battles for her “principles.”
I would sure rather see Hillary in the slammer than in the WH, but I do wonder whether she will fight as hard as she says. She’s getting old, and she will have achieved her dream. Maybe she will take a nap.
WRT Trump. Nobody knows. Unfortunately, this is better than Hillary, about whom We Know.
On account of an old saying about two objects in the same place or one in two places or something, we have a choice in which one precludes the other. Whatever went before is irrelevant.
One precludes the other.
There is no escape from that.
The only complication is that, when making a choice we ultimately regret, the other one, the one we didn’t choose, will, in our thinking, have worked just like it says in the shiny manufacturer’s brochure.
The road not taken–really, the one we didn’t go on–is going to be thought of as pleasant and smooth if the one we take combines rough and boring.
So, which of these horrible choices we take, the argument will be the other one would have been better. But there’s no proof.
However…. We know Trump is a blowhard who can’t keep track of his own mouth. Or he’s a cunning manipulator who fakes it and hauls in the unwary.
We know Hillary is a lying scumbag whose achievements include destroying Libya, abandoning the Benghazi compound and lying about it. She and hubby started out with the Travel Office firings and lied about that, not to mention siccing the FBI on the guys just to make it stink. She sells US interests to benefit their foundation. Putin knows more about her emails than we do.
It is hard to imagine Trump being worse.
Big Mac:
Add to your list the intimidation/threats that David French said were made by Trump-surrogates to his family and wife.
Trump again shows his character. Oppose him and his surrogates will show you what they will do to (not think of you): the mobster approach to persuasion.
But David French will not be believed by those who reluctantly support Trump. Dug in they are (Yoda speak).
Trump has what I consider a really, really bad character – he’s a transparent liar (and his followers know it and wink along with him), he’s a bully, he’s an authoritarian, he is cruel, he is embarrassingly (to me) self-aggrandizing, he is petty, revenge appears to be among his biggest motivations for the things he does, he is weak on policy understanding, he lacks impulse control, he’s a bad speller (I’ve observed, not scientifically, of course, that a lot of powerful men suck at spelling – like they’re too important or too busy to bother with it), he bends and breaks rules, and all he talks about is himself.
First – anyone disagree with that assessment? Counter-arguments?
An interesting study would be to take a look at historical world leaders with really, really bad character. Guys like Trump. This is not a loaded question – how many of them resulted in good governance, leaving their country better off after they were gone?
It’s a serious question.
And – again – by bad character, I want to emphasize the focus on self that Trump has. I know that there have been leaders who were successful even though they themselves were awful people, but I think it’s important to differentiate those that had the mission at the foremost. I don’t know if Alexander the Great had good character or not, but his mission was to make Greece Great Again and he accomplished that. I think Trump’s mission is to make Trump Great. But I’m open to counter-arguments.
“WRT Trump. Nobody knows. Unfortunately, this is better than Hillary, about whom We Know.” – Richard Aubrey
We are going to regret either Trump or Clinton coming to office. Period.
That stuff about two choices that preclude each other is not proof of, nor an argument for your assertion above.
Easy to imagine Trump being worse, because he provides enough fodder to contemplate a turn to outright Authoritarianism. His lack of consistency and clarity/transparency just creates uncertainty of just what he will do. His character flaws only ups concern on both counts.
Folks are projecting their wishful outcomes on a Trump presidency and are seriously under weighting that downside risk, if they acknowledge it at all.
The downside risk of Clinton is just not even in the same ballpark. We can reasonably predict it within certain bounds – hence the analog to Europe / Canada. Highly unlikely that four years under Clinton would take a sudden turn to full on Authoritarianism, corrupt as she is.
“Hillary has been letting Obama have the say, and she hasn’t really done much except implement what he and Valerie said”
There is sufficient reason to think exactly that.
Expect she would be a significant improvement on foreign affairs vs “leading from behind”.
Would be nice to see what some in-depth analysis would pull up.
Big Maq, OM & Bill,
Few, if any here will disagree with your characterizations of Trump’s flaws. I certainly do not. So it’s a given that he isn’t worthy of the office he seeks. Of course, neither is Hillary but circumstance is such that it will be one or the other.
“four more years of a Dem POTUS will lead. The reality is probably much closer to a continued slide towards what we can already see in Canada or Europe. Definitely not good, but We can recover from that.” Big Maq
No mention there of an essentially permanent liberal/leftist activist SCOTUS. No mention that instead of 4 years it may be eight or even 16. No mention that continued illegal immigration ensures a permanent democrat majority. No consideration of the consequences of continued Muslim migration into America. No consideration that the emasculation and weakening of our military will continue and that it is being shaped into a future tool of oppression.
No acknowledgement that we are at a tipping point and, that the Left will not stop at Canada or Europe, which are mere signposts on the road to the collective.
Rationally address those concerns and I am open to persuasion. Otherwise, you’re simply whistling past the graveyard.
Big maq
I can imagine Hillary unleashing the IRS and SWATing those who complain. See Waco.
I can imagine Civil Asset Forfeiture morphing from stealing by law enforcement to punishing political enemies.
Trump’s “character” is a bunch of feelings about a narcicisstic blowhard.
With Hillary, we know actual things. It’s not a matter of suspicion about character. This is a woman who is so corrupt that she was fired from the Watergate investigation staff. She’s gone downhill from there. These things we know. We know her positions on, say, the Second Amendment and the military.
With Trump, while his positions may be awful, we just don’t know. Maybe he doesn’t either.
Least worst, man.
“No mention there of an essentially permanent liberal/leftist activist SCOTUS.”
This may be the biggest downside. I don’t have a good answer for you, however I think we need to consider that the Republicans will be fighting for their lives (the party’s already got one foot in the grave thanks to it’s awful leadership, idiotic primary rules and DJT his big dumb self). I am much more comfortable (not happy about it, but less terrified) with a loyal opposition thwarting Hillary – she is not very popular and an awful politician. There will be the charges of misogamy of course). Trump – as even his fervent supports admit – is unpredictable. How beholden is he to conservatives? Don’t you think he’ll enjoy the fun of sticking it in our eye because we didn’t support him? He already came out in support of that congressperson in the primary who is diametrically opposed to his immigration “plan”. I think Trump will think it’s a hoot to nominate more leftist SC justices and watch an emasculated spineless and compliant Republican minority congress – conservative no longer – consent. So we’re kind of in a bad spot either way here.
“No mention that instead of 4 years it may be eight or even 16.”
If, if, if. The Republican party may not ever have a viable candidate again after this circus. I’m not a Republican any more. So – yeah – this might happen. But it can happen either way. So what if Republicans win with Trump but aren’t conservative anymore?
“No mention that continued illegal immigration ensures a permanent democrat majority.”
Because all immigrants vote the same way. People accuse Republicans of being racist. Because they are.
“No consideration of the consequences of continued Muslim migration into America.”
Same. People are people, made in the image of God.
“No consideration that the emasculation and weakening of our military will continue and that it is being shaped into a future tool of oppression.”
Which is it – a weak military or one being shaped into a future tool of oppression. Look, everything is awful right now vis a vis these choices. But I don’t want to give Trump his own army. If I had to bet which of these will turn the army into a tool of oppression quicker, I’m betting DJT.
“No acknowledgement that we are at a tipping point and, that the Left will not stop at Canada or Europe, which are mere signposts on the road to the collective.”
Yeah. But becoming a right-wing fascist state doesn’t look too appealing either. Germany in the 1930s or Switzerland now. Take your pick.
“Rationally address those concerns and I am open to persuasion. Otherwise, you’re simply whistling past the graveyard.”
I’m crying in my iced tea, actually. But I’m not voting for your guy. Never, ever, ever.
*misogamy* = misogyny. Dang it.
Bill. Would God allow people made in His image to be vetted to keep out the next Farook or Tsarnaev clans?
Misogamy: married to someone you hate? I like it. It’s a useful word for this election cycle.
Richard,
I knew my comments above about immigration would be problematic. I’m having trouble expressing my thoughts on the subject because it’s gotten so volatile. Let me tell you my immigration philosophy.
1. Enforce the law
2. Vet people as best you can to keep out troublemakers
So far so good?
Here’s more:
3. Calling for the deportation of all current illegal immigrants sounds good but is impossible. And often, unfortunately, immoral. Let’s focus on #1 going forward.
4. The idea that people from Syria or Mexico are going to automatically support HRC is the kind of generalization I really dislike.
5. We used to have an attitude in America that we were a great country and that people who came here would become Americans. I realize this has slipped due to leftist indoctrination and mulitculturalism. I think that’s bad. But that’s a battle to be fought in our culture. Gross big hammer approaches like “keep all muslims out” are stupid, counterproductive, and immoral.
6. I work and have worked with a lot of people who have immigrated here and think they are great.
And – possibly most controversial:
7. I don’t think illegal immigration is the NUMBER ONE ISSUE in our country. I think it’s important
Finally.
8. I’d be OK with a wall, but the idea Mexico is going to pay for it is dumb. I’d like it built only if it will really work. And I don’t want all Mexicans barred from entering the country.
9. Being a racist party, or being seen as a racist party, is bad for Republicans. Conservatives can do better than that.
Nick – ha ha 🙂
Richard Aubrey:
You write:
I notice you don’t provide a link. You know why? Because what you say WE KNOW is untrue. In other words, false. In other words, a lie.
I have read a lot about Hillary Clinton. No valid or reliable source has ever said that she was fired from Watergate. That is an urban myth, spread in part by one of those email assertions that became viral for a while. I’m surprised that you think it’s true.
The facts are here and here.
We know a lot about Hillary, much of it bad.
But some of what people think they know is just not so.
” I am much more comfortable (not happy about it, but less terrified) with a loyal opposition thwarting Hillary” Bill
That would be the loyal ‘opposition’ that, in the recent omnibus bill, just gave Obama MORE than he asked for? The loyal ‘opposition’ who has yet to register any real opposition to Obama’s executive order to make ALL public school bathrooms and locker rooms gender ‘neutral’?
No need to continue to beat Trump’s “dead horse”, we agree with you about all the bad things about him.
It is a demonstrable FACT that 70%+ of illegal immigrants vote democrat. Thus, the more that enter the country, the greater the democrat majority becomes.
“Which is it — a weak military or one being shaped into a future tool of oppression.”
It’s both and one leads to the other. Masculine conservatives are being forced out of the military. As that military becomes more liberal, they will when required become increasingly more susceptible to being used to impose the left’s agenda. The military’s top brass has already betrayed their oaths (Benghazi, etc.) and the cancer is spreading.
Do you actually imagine that the Left will settle for Switzerland? If so, willful denial is at play and facts, logic and reason futile.
He’s not ‘my guy’, as you know full well. Your rationale leads directly to Hillary and no amount of rationalization can dispute that reality.
Geoffrey:
People who disagree with you don’t automatically become prey to the
” willful denial is at play and facts, logic and (make) reason futile. …..l. Your rationale leads directly to Hillary and no amount of rationalization can dispute that reality.” Your (GB’s) take on reality, your interpretation of significant phenomenon and history. Subjective.
And, BTW, I’m not a postmodernist.
You don’t accept the counter argument, that’s your opinion. It hasn’t persuaded some who have concluded after much thought that Donald is as bad or worse than Hillary.
OM,
It is not disagreement to which I object but an apparent denial of the existential imperative of the Left and, how that applies in this case, to Bill’s assertion that the Left will settle for ‘Switzerland’. That assertion cannot be taken seriously, it is wishful thinking because the left’s ideological imperative, being totalitarian in nature… is constitutionally incapable of settling for Switzerland’s current balance between its conservative and collectivist tendencies.
I’m fine with disagreement that rests upon a coherent argument and that rationally addresses objections to it.
When I advance a coherent argument and its logic is not specifically refuted, then I can only conclude that a lack of persuasion is due to willful blindness.
Geoffey:
You seem blind yourself “due to willful blindness.” to other rational, logical, alternatives. But, we don’t agree. Oh well.
GB:
I did refute it. You just don’t agree with me. If you want to think I am not rational, fine. You think Hillary will lead us to Lenin-style governance. I think we can survive 4 years of her if we’d get our heads out of our posteriors and unhitch immediately from the Trump train that’s going to take us over a cliff.
Sorry, just more irrational ravings on my part . . .
“No need to continue to beat Trump’s “dead horse”, we agree with you about all the bad things about him.”
No you don’t. All the bad things about him make him completely unacceptable to me. Impossible to vote for. You disagree. I can respect that you have weighed that out and I don’t think you’re an idiot or irrational. We just disagree
“Do you actually imagine that the Left will settle for Switzerland?”
No, but I do believe that a majority of this country is not hard left and will only go so far. There’s been a natural tendency to balance the Executive branch with an opposed Legislative, for example. Our country is current moderate or center-left. I agree it’s moving leftward over time.
But here’s what I’m saying. The majority of the American people will not be OK with us becoming Russia circa 1917 in the next four years. I agree with you that if the US electorate votes hard-left for the next 20 years we might get there. I don’t think that will happen. I also don’t think, btw, that if it’s going to happen, electing Trump will stop it.
“If so, willful denial is at play and facts, logic and reason futile.”
Yeah, I know. You do realize we’re speaking about future events, correct? Yet you’re acting as if you have 100% certainty. Not sure what to do with this.
“He’s not ‘my guy’, as you know full well.”
You are voting for him, right?
“Your rationale leads directly to Hillary and no amount of rationalization can dispute that reality.”
I don’t dispute it. I think she’s awful. I think he’s completely unfit to be President. Never said I liked this.
OM,
I know that I do my best to respond to your and other’s specific points, I do not detect the same diligence in return. I take silent avoidance to be an admission of an inability to substantively respond. That may not be the case but what else am I supposed to think?
Bill,
“I do believe that a majority of this country is not hard left and will only go so far.”
Frog meet pot.
Transgendered bathrooms. Lack of outrage at IRS, OSHA, FBI, etc. machinations. If indicted for intentional national security violations, only 33% of democrats support disqualification of Hillary. 53% Obama approval rating. The IRAN ‘deal’. The majority of Americans are, TODAY… going along with the sacrifice of children upon the altar of political correctness.
“We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders into repeatedly and gradually giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.” — Nikita Khrushchev
GB – I don’t think we disagree, but you’re talking about gulags (which I’m not saying can never happen – remember my “20 years of hard left voting” comment?) – yet what you listed were things that I also dislike that represent relatively soft leftism and slightly more alarming corruption. None of it point of no return yet, and none of it likely to reach “gulag” status with a politician as clunky and tin-eared as Hillary leading the charge.
We disagree, I know.
Bill,
Just to be clear. We only disagree as to how close to the precipice we are and, if Hillary is elected, how soon the gulags may appear. Whether 5, 10, 20 years, it is not the length of time but the inevitability of where Hillary leads, that concerns me. Nor is it Hillary herself but the forces at her back that convinces me of the path that Hillary foreshadows.
It’s sad the Republican party couldn’t have done a better job this year getting a decent nominee. Heads need to roll (figuratively, of course).
neo. Okay, she wasn’t fired.
We can start, then, with the travel office firings. After which, as I said, they sicced the FBI on the guys for a bogus prosecution. Nearly bankrupted them in legal fees. Message, don’t be in the Clinton’s path.
Downhill from there.
Bill. WRT 9, a racist party. Thing is, republicans are accused of racism without reference to whether they are or not. It’s been repeated so often that some people actually believe it. Point is, there is nothing republicans can do, no bow so deep, no betrayal of principles so egregious that will cause liberals to stop lying.
Conservatives should stop being manipulated by such false accusations.
I don’t know that people from Syria will vote automatically for Hillary. I am sure that, once they’re on the dole–spare me the hard-working Italian great grandfather, please–as they are in Europe, they’ll vote for the dole, which is to say democrats.
“Rationally address those concerns” – GB
First we have to unpack your key assumption implicit throughout all your challenges… It assumes that Trump is going to do something “better” about each of them. Right off the bat it is ignoring a key point I’ve been trying to make…
We really don’t know.
So, we are left with no real “baseline” to compare to, and that is problematic in finding a satisfactory response.
That being said, one by one, what are the key points / questions…
No mention there of an essentially permanent liberal/leftist activist SCOTUS.
Permanent – I wouldn’t go that far. It depends on the timing. Will enough jurists retire or die in the next four years to be replaced by young ones who could be on the bench for 20+ years? Maybe, but that is still not Permanent.
At best, we might get one conservative one from Trump, only because he published a list. But who knows? What happens if he runs into resistance during confirmation? As for the rest, who knows?
Clinton is more likely to install her cronies/loyalists vs hard core leftist activists. Trump will likely appoint his own cronies (who could be just as left as Clinton’s) rather than conservatives. Is that really any better? What if he takes an Authoritarian turn?
On this issue, it seems close to a wash, with an ever so slight possibility in Trump’s favor.
.
No mention that instead of 4 years it may be eight or even 16.
This seems to imply that Trump would be “good” for 8 or 16 years rather than Clinton. By what measure?
By my definition, he would have to deliver on conservative policies for that to be “good”. I don’t see that happening, at least not any where near the scale I would expect of a GOP leader.
In fact, he openly says he’s not beholding to conservative principles. We don’t really know where he will be, as he makes as many statements that sound like a Dem as not. And all that is aside from the possibility he may turn Authoritarian.
In another recent comment on this site (not the 2020 reference at the bottom of my comment above), I did say that we need to get our act together for 2020 to win it back. That is true, regardless of who wins. Conservatives have to reformulate a plan to win in 2020, as GOP or as another party.
.
No mention that continued illegal immigration ensures a permanent democrat majority.
A lax, easy assumption that becomes self fulfilling. This thinking causes conservatives to not even bother to make the case and convince those who can be. It becomes true by default. But that is part of the big picture of how conservatism has lost ground, even, evidently, within the GOP party.
We’ve also been our own biggest enemy in getting to Border Security, since we get so wrapped around the axle on the illegal immigrants and the “purity” of everyone’s plans (anything short of mass deportation is “AMNESTY!!!!”) so we live in a stasis, an impasse and never, ever get to Border Security.
Again, we don’t really know what Trump will do. He talks about a wall across the entire border, but he walks that back to 1000 miles only. He talks about deportation, but walks that back to a “touch-back” process. He talks about banning all Muslems, but walks that back as being only “a suggestion”. He talks about limiting immigration to save American jobs, then walks that back to importing more “smart people”. AFAIAC, he could just as well announce amnesty just to pull in votes for November. Who knows?
His plan(s) – if he could be trusted to stick to them – lacks any depth to even determine the viability. How much will it cost to deport the 15-30M illegals (forget the cost of touch-back processing for now)? Do you know? I don’t. Maybe there is some number somewhere, but we have no clue if that is a sensible plan on that basis alone. And that is just one example.
Trump’s own comfortable flirtations with racism just creates an atmosphere that ensures these people run into the arms of the Dems.
Which brings us back to the first point, conservatism should be an easy sell to everyone, including immigrants. It is our principles that provided the foundation for what we have today and to sustain it. It is a matter of bringing it to them in ways they can relate to.
Border Security should be an easy sell. Once here, do illegals want competition from yet more? Doubtful. That’s just one aspect. But, we think they are all for the Dems anyway, so we don’t bother to even ask, nor explain.
Bottom line: The idea that a permanent Dem majority must follow from illegal immigration is a non sequitor.
.
No consideration of the consequences of continued Muslim migration into America.
First of all, how would you articulate the “problem”?
If this is an allusion to the merits of a “Muslim ban”, well, already mentioned Trump’s veracity on his initial stated position and the lack of detail to base viability.
There’s not much to examine on Clinton, specific to this, other than she is against a “ban”. Not to say there isn’t a possible issue here.
But, if we can be on the same page as to what the problem is, maybe we can make an assessment here.
.
No consideration that the emasculation and weakening of our military will continue and that it is being shaped into a future tool of oppression.
Have to unpack this, as it contains two unrelated (or, at least, should be) ideas.
What do you mean by “emasculation and weakening”? My guess is it is a reduction in the spending and the size of the military. Is that correct?
To judge that, we’d have to understand the strategy behind the use of our military, and if the budget size and priorities fit with that.
What is Trump’s strategy? And, how does that avoid this?
And one blind side we have as conservatives is that we are loath to acknowledge that just maybe the military wastes a lot of money and there is room for improvement. Not sure we can solve that nut, but there is a difference between cutting fat and cutting budget without regard to the tradeoffs in strategy. Politics often rhetorically conflates the two.
As for “being shaped into a future tool of oppression”…
First, what has Clinton or her campaign said that points to her making the military such a tool? Against who? Really need to be on the same page about what we are talking about here.
I presume you mean against US citizens, but the left argues the opposite. And, reducing the size/budget and being a threat against the citizens seem opposite, but the truth would be in the strategy (back to the above point).
Second, that cuts both ways, if about US citizens. If we see Trump as temperamentally more likely to go down an Authoritarian path, then all the more it is an issue under Trump.
.
No acknowledgement that we are at a tipping point and, that the Left will not stop at Canada or Europe, which are mere signposts on the road to the collective.
Of course that is truely possible as some point down that path. I don’t associate a tipping point with moving into a collective, btw. The tipping point, by my definition, would be leading to crisis, the outcome of which could be a collective. What are your tipping point signs?
Overall, this is an extension of the 4 years vs 8 or 16 argument. If we don’t get our act together and stop them, it slides ever further down that path.
You may well find the above unsatisfactory, but I find I have more questions on what you actually mean by these statements, and what you think Trump is actually delivering on them (you clearly must have something to compare that says Trump is favorable), before I run off in a direction you never meant nor you understood Trump to be about.
” Point is, there is nothing republicans can do, no bow so deep, no betrayal of principles so egregious that will cause liberals to stop lying.”
True. The left will always be that way.
But, we cannot also be blind when we see it amongst ourselves.
The past several months as conservatives should have taught us that lesson.
Big Maq
Yes to your last two comments, x 1000. Well said.
One small addition. You wrote: How much will it cost to deport the 15-30M illegals (forget the cost of touch-back processing for now)?
I agree with what you’ve said so this isn’t directed at you, more to border-security/anti-immigration conservatives in general: it’s more than just the cost. What things will our government (not known for being able to do big complicated things cheaply or well these days) NOT get done while they are rounding up millions of people. And it involves a very, very large economic displacement. Like it or not, many of these people are doing jobs that will need to be re-hired, etc.
And, though it doesn’t get mentioned very often, there is a moral aspect to this. What about illegal immigrants who are the parents of American citizens? Ship them off with their kids? Leave the kids here (really?) and break up the families? etc.
It’s a very tough nut to crack. I am for enforcement. I am for strong borders. But I’m against those who think that a guy like Trump can just walk in and fix this problem.
It’s a really sticky wicket. I want to hear solutions, not demagoguery. And I don’t really think Trump is going to do anything to fix it, except for make sure no immigrant ever will vote for a Republican again. He will be the face of the country, of Republicans. Yikes.
These people are, well, people. Yes, they shouldn’t come in illegally. Yes, we need to get better at keeping them out. No, we can’t just cancel legal immigration. No, we can’t (and we’re not going to) do crazy things like banning all Muslims.
But, we cannot also be blind when we see it amongst ourselves.
Word. Up until about six months ago I would have completely agreed with those who say the Republicans have been tarred unfairly with the “racist” label. I still think that in general they are. But spend a few minutes on twitter among the Trump hordes and you’ll see that it’s not always an unfair label.
I don’t think Trump’s some super-genius playing 3 dimensional chess or anything, but I do think he’s been smart enough to tap into the racism of the alt-right, and it’s frightening as heck to know that’s been a big part in propelling him to where he now is.
Bill says: “Calling for the deportation of all current illegal immigrants sounds good but is impossible. And often, unfortunately, immoral.”
Deportation is not “impossible” nor is it “immoral.”
“The idea that people from Syria or Mexico are going to automatically support HRC is the kind of generalization I really dislike.”
You can dislike it all you want. It remains the truth.
“Gross big hammer approaches like “keep all muslims out” are stupid, counterproductive, and immoral.”
I don’t think you’ve been paying proper attention.
” I don’t think illegal immigration is the NUMBER ONE ISSUE in our country.”
Again, you seem not to have been paying proper attention. But you can think it. You’ll simply be wrong.
“Being a racist party, or being seen as a racist party, is bad for Republicans. ”
Perhaps. But that dye is already cast and carved into the stone skulls of our enemies and their sycophants. Nothing to be done about that other than ignore it so it has no power over you.
Deportation is not “impossible”
Deporting, what is it, 11 million illegals is impossible. Logistically. That’s a significant % of our population. How would you, realistically, accomplish that?
And it would often be immoral.
What do you do about families containing both illegal immigrants and America citizens?
These are real questions.
But that dye is already cast and carved into the stone skulls of our enemies and their sycophants
I’m not talking about winning over leftists. You can’t win without getting votes from moderates and independents (like my kind hearted mother, who is almost 80 and who has voted for the winner in every election since she was able to vote. She’s not voting for Trump, btw)
Trump is cementing in the minds of people he absolutely needs if he is going to win that he and, by definition, his party are racist. The only reason he still might win is people are completely cynical now anyway and HRC is so awful.
“I want to hear solutions, not demagoguery.” Bill
I have yet to have anyone tell me why Trump (or any other President) cannot simply go after the employers and use his regulatory powers to defund benefits for illegals. Throw some employers in jail, make it clear that prosecution of employers of illegals will continue. End the benefits.
NO jobs + NO benefits = self-deportation.
NO wall needed.
Let any child born here, who is in elementary school and up stay, put the parents on a semi-permanent work visa but the parents are barred permanently from American citizenship. That is the consequence for breaking the law.
Bill. No idea of convincing the unconvinced. Certainly, the left is pushing the issue, but whether that amounts to actually convincing the unconvinced is another issue.
In addition, there is a category of issues which can be called racist because race is involved one way or another.
You don’t have to be racist to question affirmative action, although it will get you called racist.
You don’t have to be racist to make the point that the disproportion in incarceration is a matter of disproportion in the matter of committing crimes, but you’ll be called a racist if you make the case.
Objecting to certain cultural issues from the Middle East is not racist, but you will be called a racist for doing so.
Conservatives have to accept that the accusations are a manipulative scam and nobody believes it.
“Let any child born here, who is in elementary school and up stay, put the parents on a semi-permanent work visa but the parents are barred permanently from American citizenship. That is the consequence for breaking the law.” – GB
“AMNESTY!!!”
That word would be heard across most of the “conservative” radio talk shows and blogs over such a proposal anytime in the last 7-8 years.
It is an outcome something like this that is probably the “compromise” that would happen.
There is precedent. Hong Kong citizens even carried British Passports, BUT they were not allowed to migrate to the UK prior to the turn over of HK to China in 1997.
So, yes, Geoffrey, that is probably close to what the majority in the US can accept. But, it is not what Trump is “advertising”, nor his supporters are “thinking” would be the outcome (nor “acceptable” in their eyes, I’d guess).
.
@Bill – right – there are many pieces to the actual issue of deporting on that scale.
Political. I doubt there is an appetite for what would be seen on TV every night. So, I’d expect FIERCE political opposition – not just relatively passive “sanctuary cities” anymore.
How does one deal with governments (i.e. states) that would declare themselves a “sanctuary”? What funding cuts would be enough for them to give in that wouldn’t have an impact on the re-election expectations of their Congressional representatives?
Legal. We have statutes of limitations on almost all crimes short of murder. Is crossing the border illegally on par with murder, or should it be treated as a lesser crime?
The adjudication of each case and the repeated appeals would take ages – unless the POTUS bypasses Congress to make “arrangements” to fastpath this process. Acceptable?
Would Congress fund a huge expansion of the agents and judges required? Probably not unless the GOP dominate both House and Senate (assuming all GOP would even vote uniformly). If not, how does POTUS implement it?
Economic. There is the common perception that this is a drain on the economy. We can find reports for either side of this, but mostly from those who may have a dog in that hunt. If it is a net positive, as I suspect, will people be happy and accepting of an impact to their pocket book? Double whammy, really, as more taxes are required to pay for the enforcement too.
As a practical matter, if we line up all the pros and cons, would we find out that it really is worth going to the mat on this one vs finding some compromise?
Many, many implications that are tied up in any active-deportation plan.
Our real issue is that the borders are not secure, at both the physical borders and the virtual borders (where we have people overstay). That is where we need our attention and need to get fixed.
Big Maq,
“AMNESTY!!!”
There would be no citizenship for any illegal and legal residency only for those who can prove that their child was born here.
True, Trump is not selling this but he could sell it and he’s indicated some flexibility on the issue.
There is going to be FIERCE political opposition to any real change. If sincere, Trump should have no problem telling his critics to ‘pound sand’. Much of what I propose can legally be done by Trump alone.
I have never heard of a statute of limitations on illegal entry. Remember they are not citizens and if they cannot prove they’ve fled from persecution, they’ve no basis for an appeal.
So no need for Congress to fund a huge expansion of agents and judges.
We weather any economic turmoil and once we have a handle on the problem, we adjust and adapt.
The real issue is that the President and Congress do not have the desire to secure the borders.
No solution can be perfect, so the evaluation must be is the proposed solution good enough?
“I don’t think Trump’s some super-genius playing 3 dimensional chess or anything” – Bill
Nail, meet Hammer.
I’ve tired of hearing how Trump is a “genius”, and am particularly annoyed at bloggers who attempt to “explain it” – one of the more egregious is Scott Adams (Dilbert) who sings “Hare Trumpna” in honor of how Trump is some “master communicator”.
Adams also thinks the population are a bunch of “meat puppets”, but from his writing I’d guess that he excludes himself, as he has the unique ability to “see and observe” the impact of such communication on (the other) “meat puppets”.
Stopped reading him almost as soon as I started.
.
Explaining the Trump phenomenon is like trying to explain why a song is a hit. The fresh arrangement of instruments. The words and the notes hit just the right emotional chords. The star’s image is one their fans aspire to. Like trying to figure out the image reflected in a million pieces of broken mirror – all of it right or wrong in some general way, but never hitting at the core, nor getting the combination just right.
In absence of a clear explanation, folks default to “he must be a genius”.
Most of these explanations fall flat when run up against the actual path to victory.
Trump had a string of wins with a plurality against a highly divided field all of whom (but Cruz) were competing for the same group of votes. They were all on one side of town and left the other, large part of town to Trump. Strategic error.
Trump may have won by the rules (and we know he didn’t even play that game well), but he hadn’t won the hearts and minds of the majority of the GOP – that takes something more like “genius”, IMHO.
.
“Yes to your last two comments, x 1000. Well said.”
Thanks. I look forward to more “Bill says”.
“The real issue is that the President and Congress do not have the desire to secure the borders. – GB
Mostly Disagree.
I agree, in as much as I think Dems, and the GOP see an advantage in keeping it a wedge issue for elections.
I disagree in that, at least on the GOP side, politicians get burned by even suggesting they negotiate, as even a smidgen of give on the topic of what to do with the illegals (to say nothing of going as far as your proposal) gets blasted as “AMNESTY!!!” So, it is the GOP supporters who have created a political taboo preventing the politicians from moving on the subject.
These both reinforce each other… taboo, wedge.
.
No solution can be perfect, so the evaluation must be is the proposed solution good enough?
Oh agree fully.
.
“There is going to be FIERCE political opposition to any real change. … Much of what I propose can legally be done by Trump alone.”
Come on Geoffrey, that is not what I said.
It was not in context of what Trump could do with YOUR proposal.
It was in context of active mass deportation, the kind that most Trump supporters likely think Trump is going to provide.
Nice try, though.
“I disagree in that, at least on the GOP side, politicians get burned by even suggesting they negotiate, as even a smidgen of give on the topic of what to do with the illegals (to say nothing of going as far as your proposal) gets blasted as “AMNESTY!!!” So, it is the GOP supporters who have created a political taboo preventing the politicians from moving on the subject.”
Since the GOP ignores pushback from its base all the time, I’m doubtful that pushback from the conservative base is a factor..
No, IMO two other factors are responsible.
First the GOPe;
“Top GOP donors tell party to legalize illegal immigrants”
That emboldened section points to the second factor; the GOP is set on wooing Hispanic voters and exchanging (abandoning) them for its conservative base.
“Hispanic Voting Power Swells to Record for 2016, Pew Study Says”
Nor is this new;
Paul Ryan’s Open Borders Push With Luis Gutierrez Exposed in 2013 Video”
“U.S. Congressional Debate In California Hosted Entirely In Spanish”
“Come on Geoffrey, that is not what I said.
It was not in context of what Trump could do with YOUR proposal.
It was in context of active mass deportation, the kind that most Trump supporters likely think Trump is going to provide.”
Sorry, I wasn’t ‘trying’ anything. I was speaking to my proposal, as your response (I thought) was in regard to my proposal. Agreed that mass deportation is unlikely and would result in massive civil disobedience. Which is an argument for self-deportation. Remove the incentive and you change the behavior.
“I’m doubtful that pushback from the conservative base is a factor.. “
Then we must be living in different worlds. Cantor is just an anomaly. Cruz is just an anomaly.
This single issue is probably the biggest factor that cost Rubio his chance at POTUS.
.
“First the GOPe; “Top GOP donors tell party to legalize illegal immigrants””
That first point proves my point…
We fetishize what we are going to do about the people here illegally. We just cannot let that sit to the side, thus it becomes a major road block to making headway on Border Security.
It is besides the point about who wants what for a GOP politician to do.
Should the fact that some at the table may have different ideas on what to do with these people stop us from moving forward on getting to a solution for the separate issue of Border Security?
If you were leading with your proposal to a GOP base audience and your first point was about your plans for these people, how do you think it would be received?
Ya think they’d want to hear the rest? … that they’d be hooting on top of their chairs saying “That’s the guy we need at the negotiation table!”?
I hope you see the point now.
Yet, your outline is one of the closest to realistic than any of the political rhetoric around this has been.
.
“”…immigrants are potential Republican voters…” That … points to the second factor; the GOP is set on wooing Hispanic voters and exchanging (abandoning) them for its conservative base.”
I’ve been saying all along immigrants are potential GOP voters.
I don’t want to defend statements I don’t know the full context on. I don’t agree with their implied premise (from the quote) that massively legalizing illegal immigrants (if that is what they are proposing) is the way to woo immigrant votes (if that is their argument).
That said, these are not mutually exclusive – appealing to those in the immigrant community here legally that can vote, and maintaining a core conservative base.
This is another form of the non sequitor that “continued illegal immigration ensures a permanent democrat majority”.
.
Regarding Ryan and “Open Borders” … First it quotes Ryan as saying “Open Systems” – IDK what that means and Breitbart does not provide enough context (I found a link to a one hour video of Ryan’s speech, but I’m not going to spend that kind of time to find out, considering it is Breitbart and similar sites framing it this way).
Second, I think this might give a better picture of what Ryan stands for. This is much more in line in characterizing where I thought he was. Maybe he has changed significantly since then?
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan_Immigration.htm
Then there is this recent commentary…
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435289/immigration-open-borders-republicans-are-few-and-far-between
“the GOP is set on wooing Hispanic voters and exchanging (abandoning) them for its conservative base”
FYI… took the liberty to interpret this as abandoning the conservative base in exchange for wooing Hispanic voters.