Taken in context that quote is not very shocking and certainly wasn't racist. Moreover he clarified his remarks the very next day. Trump's remarks about the judge are racist in any context and he repeated them for several days. It's rather disingenuous to compare this to Trump and suggest that it's even in the same league as what Trump said.

I don't think anyone would be shocked to hear an assertion that a white judge had mistreated someone who wasn't white on the basis of the latter's race. There might (or might not) be public debate over whether the assertion was true, but no one would be appalled merely at the claim's having been made. (Indeed, such claims are made daily and have been for many years, yet rarely seem to be regarded as less newsworthy for that.)

Why, then, should it be shocking or appalling to hear the claim made with the parties' races reversed? Are we to assume that people who aren't white are incapable of bias? Are we to assume that a judge has no power over the people whose cases are heard in his courtroom? Is the total equality of all races a principle worth upholding, or one merely worth claiming when it's convenient, and trivial to ignore when it's not? Are we, in short, to assume that only white people can be bigots?

(And, I mean, you can argue that the question is ill-founded and wrongheaded all you like, and I realize that's the temptingly easy option. You might, though, if you're really as worried about a Trump win in November as blog posts like Mr. Altman's make out, think instead about how you might actually convince somebody who asks a question like that, instead of just trying to shout him down.)

> I don't think anyone would be shocked to hear an assertion that a white judge had mistreated someone who wasn't white on the basis of the latter's race.

If it was presented as "I'm black, and I'm for more equal rights in America, and he's white, so I don't think he's treating me fairly because of his heritage", which I think is more akin to how it was originally presented, they yes, people would be upset if it was proclaimed loudly and publicly in a national forum.

If it was "He's German, and I'm Jewish, therefore I don't think he's treating me fairly because of his heritage" then yes, people would be upset.

I don't know why you think it wouldn't be a big deal. There would be plenty of people denouncing statements like that. There would also be overly apologetic liberals and overly radicalized minorities defending the statements (wrongly, IMO). Those have their equivalents in the current situation as well.

Don't cast aspersions on people's character (is he violating his oath of office?) based purely on their race. We have a word for that. It's called racism, and it applies both ways.

Trump decided to use his position as the presumptive presidential nominee of a major political party to interfere in in a civil suit related to his personal business interests. That alone makes me wonder if he would abuse the power of his office should we win the election. That he did so by invoking the judge's race made him look desperate and unable to control his own temper.

I'm sure you're right that defendants in trials say stupid shit about judges, and I'm sure some of those comments are overtly racist. If the races in this situation were reversed, I still wouldn't vote for the hot-headed loudmouth.

That is still peanuts compare to the other and only female presidential candidate. Just google how bad she abused her power all the way back in decades. Using that as benchmark, Trump looks damn honest and worthy of POTUS and MAGA. He has my vote (together with almost few hundreds of my family and friends votes in Nov). It is always the choice of lesser of 2 evils and economy. Trump proved with his billions that he can do it when it comes to money. Though I don't know how evil he is, I do know the other candidate is on par with Dick if not greater. Don't get misdirected by the media and headlines. Do your own research and see the facts unedited for yourself to form your own opinion.

Do you consider http://www.politifact.com a credible source?

How are Trump's remarks about the judge racist?

He never said Mexicans are not smart, should go to different schools, or that they can't drink from the same water.

All he said that this judge in particular has a background as an activist lawyer that belongs to an organization that promotes separation of the latino race, and has participated in granting scholarships to undocumented mexicans. And he suggests that background creates a bias in the case.

American society would not accept a judge with ties to the segregationist movement presiding over the case of a black man accused a crime against a white man.

Or how about a judge that was part of BLM presiding the case of a white cop accused of killing a black youth?

Would that be racist too?

Are defense attorneys racist when they dismiss jurors?

Judges are people too, everyone has biases.

> And he suggests that background creates a bias in the case.

Not really. We have to be more careful with the words than that.

Here's the difference: Trump said that the judge's rulings show that the judge is biased. So, if we accept that the judge is biased, then we want a reason, that is, we want some motivation. Well, it turns out, this judge has Mexican ancestry, is active in some pro-Mexican political causes that conflict with Trump's campaign positions on illegal Mexican immigration. So, Trump said that it appears that this pro-Mexican background of the judge is the judge's motivation for the judge being unfair to Trump.

The huge point is, Trump never claimed that a judge with Mexican background could not be fair. Instead Trump claimed that it was solid that this judge WAS already unfair to Trump and, then, later, saw as motivation the judge's pro-Mexican background.

It has been easy for the media to distort this situation into Trump claiming that the judge must be unfair because he has a Mexican background. Nope, that's a huge distortion, playing with words. Simply put, Trump claims that the judge is unfair because of the judge's rulings.

He also believes a Muslim judge could be unfair to him because of his policies. I think the media is not really distorting his thinking but rather clarifying it. Similar to when he said Obama has something else going on with regards to radical Islam. He didn't say it, but said people should fill in the blank. Also, his lawyers have never filed such a claim.

It's a tricky issue of language and the use of because.

I tried to be clear. And it really is clear: Trump claims that the judge IS unfair, and his reasons for saying that are that, as Trump claims, the judge has ruled in unfair ways. So, we get this far, the judge unfair, without mentioning Mexico. Or, the REASON Trump is saying that the judge is unfair is "because" of the judge's rulings against Trump. Then, as in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKmpB7SeNE

with

> All I'm trying to do is figure out why I'm being treated so unfairly by a judge. And a lot of people agree with it. All I want to do, all I want to do is find out why I'm being treated so unfairly by a judge.

Trump is looking for the judge's motivation -- common enough in legal cases, right? So, Trump concludes that the judge's motivation in being unfair is the judge's Mexican background and support of pro-Mexican causes that conflict with some of Trump's campaign positions.

So, we have two uses of "because". Really the second use would be better written, Trump says that the judge's motivation to be unfair was "because" of the judge's Mexican background, etc.

That is, Trump is addressing not just one point about the judge but two -- (1) unfair rulings and (2) motivation for the unfairness. The Mexican part has only to do with point (2).

But, sure, the media that wants headlines claiming that Trump is racist leaps to combine points (1) and (2) and say that Trump says that the judge is unfair "because" of his Mexican background, etc. No: Trump says that the judge is unfair "because" of the judge's rulings and then says that the judge is motivated to be unfair "because" the judge's Mexican background conflicts with Trump's campaign positions.

The media has leaped, nearly in unison, to have a lot of fun, get a lot of clicks, confusing the rulings and the motivations for the rulings to claim that Trump is racist. Trump has claimed that the media is dishonest and disgusting, and IMHO this is an example.

Was the judge unfair? Heck if I know -- I'm not a lawyer. But, unfair or not, maybe as a defendant, as part of a good defense, Trump gets to push back against the judge.

But no way does the record support that Trump is being racist, that is, support that Trump says that any judge with a Mexican background will automatically be unfair.

In one interview, Trump was asked why he didn't say that the judge's rulings were unfair and stop there and not mention Mexico. Sure, Trump might have done that. But Trump says he is a "counter puncher" and, e.g., ready to attack back, in this case, say that the motivation (right, my attempt at being more clear) of the judge was the Mexican stuff. In such counter punching, Trump builds his reputation as no pushover and gets more media attention. In response in this case, much of the media took the opportunity to attack back by playing with the word "because" by conflating the two issues, the rulings and the motivations.

IMHO, Trump is this and that but he's not racist at all. The media -- too often deliberately disgustingly deceptive.

As you mention, for a Muslim judge, would he have to be unfair? Nope. But if a Muslim judge WERE unfair, could his motivation for being unfair be that he was a Muslim and Trump's campaign statements about Muslims? Sure.

Again, there is not just one point to be explained but two -- (1) unfairness and (2) motivation for unfairness. Being Mexican or Muslim would have only to do with (2).

Look at this huge pile of split hairs.... The judge is american.

The judge's ancestry is Mexican. And, more important, the judge is active in some pro-Mexican political causes that conflict with some of Trump's campaign positions.

So, again, just for you, Trump claims that some of the judge's rulings were unfair. Then Trump looked for the judge's motivation for the unfair rulings and noticed the ancestry and political causes and concluded that those were were the motivation for the judge being unfair.

My point is, what Trump was doing was not racist. Maybe Trump was blowing smoke in a legal case, looking for attention, pushing back against a legal case being brought during a campaign and for maybe political reasons, etc., but I don't think Trump was being racist.

Too much of the media wanted to attack Trump and claim that what Trump said was that no judge with Mexican ancestry could be fair to him, but that is nothing like what Trump said. It's more than split hairs.

Which pro-Mexican political causes are you talking about? Which category do you think Trump thinks the judge belongs to... thieves, rapists, or is he one of the "good ones"? If I went to "Trump University" would I learn how to properly see Mexicans, Mexican American and Americans of Mexican descent in the proper and not racist manner (in your opinion) that Trump views them in?

I've read many times that what Trump said about the judge was racist.

IMHO, the solid, primary sources do not support that claim.

I do intend to post to this thread a response to Altman's post where I give details, but to me the Trump-judge thing went through three steps:

Step 1. Trump asserted that the judge made some unfair decisions against Trump. Maybe Trump was just blowing smoke as part of a good defense, but maybe he was on solid ground. I'm not a lawyer. Then Trump asked -- I have a quote -- why the judge was being unfair.

Step 2. Soon it was clear enough that the judge had Mexican ancestry and was active in some pro-Mexican political activities that conflicted with Trump's campaign positions on illegal immigration from Mexico. Then, and only then, did Trump assert that this background of the judge was likely the reason the judge was unfair.

Or, Trump never claimed that a judge with Mexican ancestry would have to be unfair. Instead, Trump claimed that this judge's actions in the case showed that the judge was unfair to Trump and, then, could, easily enough, see explanatory reasons in the judge's background. Or, if want to say that someone is being unfair, then it helps to give an explanatory reason. In law, that's called motivation or some such, right, and is regarded as important, right?

Step 3. Since then, a lot more has come out on the judge. He's close to some groups that are wildly racist, e.g., want everyone in the US of Western European descent to return to Europe. Trump has concluded that the judge should recuse himself from the case. If the judge does not recuse, then the case starts to look just political.

Maybe a judge really is strongly for pro-Mexican political causes and is eager to be unfair to others. So, in that case we can't say that the judge is unfair because of his pro-Mexican causes? That would be a license for anyone with pro-Mexican causes to be unfair without being criticized.

"Or, Trump never claimed that a judge with Mexican ancestry would have to be unfair."

Sure he did. Then he doubled down on it by saying a Muslim Judge might be unfair, too. I'm not sure how anybody could fail to see racism here.

   DICKERSON: If it were a Muslim judge, would you also feel like they wouldn't be able to treat you fairly because of that policy of yours?

   TRUMP: It's possible, yes. Yeah. That would be possible, absolutely.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06...

Correct me if I am wrong, but your premise here looks like a meaningless semantic argument while ignoring why racism is bad to begin with.

Racism is bad to begin with because it reduces the vast complexity of human experience, character, circumstance and rights to single, largely meaningless in the context, genetic/ethnic characteristic. Now tell me, how Sanders is not doing the same, at least partially, but substantially, saying white people can't really experience poverty?

Imo, racism isn't bad because it oversimplifies the complexity of human experience. It is bad because it degrades in a very direct way the human experience of the group that it is targeting. I don't see how that statement does this. Poor white people have advantages that poor black people don't have because of racism... I don't see why you consider it racist to point that out. Its the opposite because it is highlighting inequality not causing it... or at least that is how it looks to me.

Oversimplifies and degrades are two ways to say the same in this case. If you mean that this statement does not directly harm anyone, many racist statements don't. In fact, there are a lot of racists that never harmed anyone - not because they didn't want to, but because they were inconsequential and never had the opportunity. I think it's pretty strange definition of racism to measure it by whether it causes any immediate direct harm to anybody. Very small number of statements are immediately harmful as such.

> Poor white people have advantages that poor black people don't have because of racism... I don't see why you consider it racist to point that out.

I don't but that's not what Sanders said. If he said that, that indeed would be true, but he didn't.

>Oversimplifies and degrades are two ways to say the same in this case.

I disagree. I don't believe his intent was to degrade. I think he was trying to acknowledge a truth about our culture, ironically an inequality born out of racism. Here is the full quote so anyone reading this doesn't just see the "taken out of context reddit meme" version.

"So to answer your question, I would say, and I think it’s similar to what the secretary said, when you’re white, you don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto. You don’t know what it’s like to be poor. You don’t know what it’s like to be hassled when you walk down the street or you get dragged out of a car.

And I believe that as a nation in the year 2016, we must be firm in making it clear. We will end institutional racism and reform a broken criminal justice system."

...he said, because the claim that it's not possible to be racist against white people had actually won over anybody ever.

So rather than pointing out how Im wrong (as I even requested), you construct a strawman argument? I didn't claim that... its fine if you disagree with me, but be honest in your discussion.

Edit: and since you are not the person that posted the sanders quote.. im not sure how you know what they think their premise is.

Is that not where you're coming from? Because it sure sounds like that's where you're coming from.

The Sanders' quote wasn't oppressively racist, given that his whole platform was centered around equality. Im not claiming that its impossible to say something racist and oppressive about white people. Saying something like "All white people are NASCAR loving, mountain dew sucking, Trump supporting, racist, wal-mart grade white trash" would be considered racist for example.

To hold the belief that all people of a particular race are incapable of doing something that another race does is the definition of racism.

A viable candidate.