2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
How does a racist bigot hypocrite like Trump get away with saying everything that he does, never mind base a campaign to be the President of the US around that?
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
How does a racist bigot hypocrite like Trump get away with saying everything that he does, never mind base a campaign to be the President of the US around that?
Click to expand...
I have a feeling many people echo his sentiments but dont want to admit it. They can be pretty extreme when it comes to touchy subjects like religion and terrorism in America. They will do so by supporting this bigot without exactly voicing their support in public. Never mind his racist comments, he said two days ago on a TV show, he would date his own daughter.
 
God I wish someone would just punch Trump in his throat so he can never speak again. I hate him so much. Complete lunatic. And he says on CNN he is the least racist person ever and this whole closing the borders to Muslims isn't a religion issue but a security issue. fecking asshole.
 
RDCR07 said:
I have a feeling many people echo his sentiments but dont want to admit it. They can be pretty extreme when it comes to touchy subjects like religion and terrorism in America. They will do so by supporting this bigot without exactly voicing their support in public. Never mind his racist comments, he said two days ago on a TV show, he would date his own daughter.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I read about the last part. Creep.

I still can't wrap my head around how he gets away with it without an outcry. How he isn't subjected to more frequent public statements of dismissal and shaming by respected personalities or people in power.
Maybe he is, and I don't know.
 
And none of the Republican candidates are even close to being sane. Like all the feckers are extreme in all their views. I can't believe how stupid are nation is going to look if God forbid one of these fecking Republicans win.
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
Yeah, I read about the last part. Creep.
Click to expand...
Yeah again a few years in a show when asked what he and his daughter had in common with each other, Ivanka said Real Estate and Golf and Trump said, "Well I would say sex but you know thats not possible"...I mean really?
 
Neutral said:
Not a presidential issue...but WTF is wrong with Scalia?

“most of the black scientists in this country do not come from the most advanced schools” and added that black students do better in a “slower track.”

Scalia also said students of color are being “pushed into schools that are too advanced for them” due to race conscious affirmative action policies.
Click to expand...

I know conservative groups have come up with some discredited 'studies' regarding this issue...but Scalia really has stopped pretending. He has never been afraid to speak his mind, but lately...wow.
Click to expand...

That's a very misleading way to phrase what he appears to have actually said. From NYT:

Justice Antonin Scalia said that minority students with inferior academic credentials may be better off at “a less advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well.”
Click to expand...

He's not claiming that all black students do better on a slower track. He's pointing out that students who are not academically ready for their course may be better off not taking it, a statement which by definition will include more affirmative-action students, which in turn by definition will include more minority students.

I personally support AA but Scalia raises an important point.
 
naturalized said:
That's a very misleading way to phrase what he appears to have actually said. From NYT:



He's not claiming that all black students do better on a slower track. He's pointing out that students who are not academically ready for their course may be better off not taking it, a statement which by definition will include more affirmative-action students, which in turn by definition will include more minority students.

I personally support AA but Scalia raises an important point.
Click to expand...

Except that's not what he said....


In a remark that drew muted gasps in the courtroom, Justice Antonin Scalia said that minority students with inferior academic credentials may be better off at “a less advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well.”

“I don’t think it stands to reason that it’s a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible,” he added.

But part of the reason that the remark drew “muted gasps,” surely, is that that’s not what Scalia said–he didn’t say minority students “with inferior academic credentials” would be better off at worse schools, he said African-Americans in general would. Here’s the whole passage:

"There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less–a slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas…. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them."

He goes on to suggest that “really competent blacks” would be better off if they were “admitted to lesser schools”:

"I’m just not impressed by the fact that that the University of Texas may have fewer [black students]. Maybe it ought to have fewer. And maybe some, you know, when you take more, the number of blacks, really competent blacks, admitted to lesser schools turns out to be less. And I don’t think it stands to reason that it’s a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible."


http://fair.org/home/nyt-rewrites-scalia-to-make-him-sound-less-racist/
Click to expand...

EDIT: transcript from the Supreme Court website:http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-981_p8k0.pdf

The relevant pages are 67 and 68
 
Last edited:
Neutral said:
Except that's not what he said....
Click to expand...

Oh, I didn't know the US had same-day oral transcripts publicly available. That's handy.

I still disagree. Reading the transcript linked, Scalia was responding to a specific point being raised by counsel. Formatting is a bitch but here goes:

MR GARRE: What - what I'd like to say too is, if this Court rules that University of Texas can't consider race, or if it rules that universities that consider race have to die a death of a thousand cuts for doing so, we know exactly what's going to happen. Experience tells us that. University - this happened at the University of Texas after the Hopwood case: Diversity plummeted, especially among African-Americans. Diversity plummeted at selective institutions in California, Berkeley, and UCLA, after Prop 209. And that is exactly what's taking place today at the University of Michigan. Now is not the time, and this is certainly not the case

JUSTICE SCALIA: There are - there are those who contend that it does not benefit AfricanAmericans to to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a lessadvanced school, a less - a slowertrack school where they do well.
Click to expand...

Why would diversity plummet because an institution became selective (meaning race-blind)? Because affirmative-action students have by definition inferior academic credentials. The issue of inferior credentials is the context in which Scalia was speaking.
 
@naturalized Ive seen a couple of other people say Scalia was trying to refer to mismatch theory - but did it 'clumsily'

I believe that he was speaking of mismatch theory and all that entails - but I refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt with regards to his words. Not just the 1st passage, but also the 2nd. He knew what he was saying. I still remember him joking about the Voting Rights Act and how it was discriminatory because it didn't protect white voters.

Aaah yes, the poor, oppressed and downtrodden white voter - he who was systematically denied the right to vote for a long long time.
 
Scalia's comments are not far from what James Watson used to regularly say about genetic influences towards intellect based on race.

On October 25, 2007, Watson was compelled to retire as chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on New York's Long Island and from its board of directors, after he had been quoted in The Times the previous week as saying "[I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really." He went on to say that despite the desire that all human beings should be equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."
Click to expand...
 
Yup, "there are some who say blacks should go to easier schools", or however he actually worded it, is definitely a horrific way to phrase mismatch theory, if that was indeed what he was going for - no argument there.
 
It was awfully clumsy, and oral arguments always run that risk. But by taking it at its worse possible meaning you're just dodging the actual debate to be had about mismatch theory and other issues surrounding AA. I see this also in abortion arguments, where each side would rather demonize the other than acknowledge the true motivations behind each's opinion and engage in actual debate.
 
Scalia is very much past his 'die by date'.

EDIT: the future make up of the Supreme Court is for me the most important reason we should never have any of the insane candidates from the Republican party anywhere near the White House. Scalia and his house boy Thomas must be removed ASAP and hopefully they die soon.
 
Last edited:
Red Dreams said:
Scalia is very much past his 'die by date'.

EDIT: the future make up of the Supreme Court is for me the most important reason we should never have any of the insane candidates from the Republican party anywhere near the White House. Scalia and his house boy Thomas must be removed ASAP and hopefully they die soon.
Click to expand...

You're saying this with a straight face?
 
You can use the 'N' word for Thomas...and it would be appropriate. I'm sure he is proud of selling out his own kind.

Feck him and the other 4.

Anyways. No fears. We will not have a Republican in the White House for a long time. The Country is moving Left.
 
Raoul said:
Either way they're fecked, as Trump will go 3rd party if he senses they are conspiring against him. :D
Click to expand...

He has said this.

When asked by The Washington Post last week what he thought about a contested convention, Trump said he, too, is preparing for one.

“I don’t think it’s going to be a brokered convention. But if it is, I’d certainly go all the way — and I think I’d have a certain disadvantage,” he said.


“I’ll be disadvantaged,” he continued. “The deal-making, that’s my advantage. My disadvantage is that I’d be going up against guys who grew up with each other, who know each other intimately and I don’t know who they are, okay? That’s a big disadvantage. . . . These kind of guys stay close. They all know each other. They want each other to win.”


So I agree
 
Revan said:
So, you went to 'Merica for PhD? How it is going on?

Agree that Rubio - and to a degree Cruz - are Republicans best shot to win the election. And I think that Trump won't win GOP nomination, but then I would have bet everything I have that he wouldn't have been leading in December.

Trump looks like the villains from comics, but both Rubio/Cruz seem quite dangerous while also having a chance of beating Hilary.
Click to expand...


Yup, unlike in Europe, the prof has to give the student funding in the US. Europe would have meant an insane hunt for scholarships.

I thought Trump would slip off the lead nce the establishment settled around 1 guy and the others backed off but that isn't happening. He has no chance in the general though, especially if they do what they're threatening and do some match-fixing on the nomination (and he runs as independent)
 
Raoul said:
There will certainly be a good number of Latino voters doing that. However, i think Trump's controversial comments over the past 6 months are aimed mainly at the right wing base of the GOP in order to strictly win the primaries and nomination. Once he wins it, I'm fairly certain he will reverse course and start with a more pragmatic platform to gain non GOP base voters.
Click to expand...

You don't think his huge ego will take over and he will press on with his far right stance because it is serving him so well at the moment?

Gandalf Greyhame said:
How does a racist bigot hypocrite like Trump get away with saying everything that he does, never mind base a campaign to be the President of the US around that?
Click to expand...

Quite simply because he is praying on peoples fears. He is also saying what a lot of people are really thinking, and until now, nobody has actually come out and said it. Even though we live in a rapidly changing world, an awful lot of people don't like/want change and don't/wont adapt well to it. You only have to look at France with Le Pen doing so well at the moment, UKIP in the UK and the Tea Party in the states to realise that unfortunately, and for whatever reason, these parties with these type of policies are speaking for a lot of people and attracting a lot of support.

Ironically, this type of thinking will only perpetuate the situation and the leaders of ISIS must be rubbing their hands at the thought of someone like Trump becoming President of the USA.
 
Last edited:
MarceloFalcon said:
It was awfully clumsy, and oral arguments always run that risk. But by taking it at its worse possible meaning you're just dodging the actual debate to be had about mismatch theory and other issues surrounding AA. I see this also in abortion arguments, where each side would rather demonize the other than acknowledge the true motivations behind each's opinion and engage in actual debate.
Click to expand...

That's exactly right.

Scalia may well be a racist. He winds up my American left-wing friends like nothing I've ever seen. But say what you like about the man, he's undeniably very, very intelligent and eloquent. His stuff on textual interpretation wouldn't be required reading all over the world if he wasn't. Whatever thoughts he may privately harbour, I find it simply unbelievable that he'd go off on an unhinged racist rant int he middle of oral argument with his conservative ally Thomas sitting right next to him. Its an attempt to fudge the actual issues by "poisoning the well".
 
naturalized said:
That's exactly right.

Scalia may well be a racist. He winds up my American left-wing friends like nothing I've ever seen. But say what you like about the man, he's undeniably very, very intelligent and eloquent. His stuff on textual interpretation wouldn't be required reading all over the world if he wasn't. Whatever thoughts he may privately harbour, I find it simply unbelievable that he'd go off on an unhinged racist rant int he middle of oral argument with his conservative ally Thomas sitting right next to him. Its an attempt to fudge the actual issues by "poisoning the well".
Click to expand...

So do you have any specific examples of his very undeniably intelligence? Or a link or something? Seriously, back up what you´re saying. This guy always sounds like such a dick.

Same with Ted Cruz. Where´s this so called intelligence? How can you you be so fecking ignorant on things like science, and be considered so intelligent?
 
Nobby style said:
So do you have any specific examples of his very undeniably intelligence? Or a link or something? Seriously, back up what you´re saying. This guy always sounds like such a dick.

Same with Ted Cruz. Where´s this so called intelligence? How can you you be so fecking ignorant on things like science, and be considered so intelligent?
Click to expand...

I thought I literally just said this.

The guy is basically the current single leading authority on textualist statutory interpretation - the principle of interpreting statutes by hewing as closely as possible to the text. His shit is taught all over the world. There is no other current American justice, SCOTUS or not, whom comes to mind in that regard (in fairness, partially this is because textualism is so eccentric that he's got the whole lane to himself).

I know you dislike him on ideological grounds. Go for it. That has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
 
naturalized said:
partially this is because textualism is so eccentric that he's got the whole lane to himself).
Click to expand...


That's part of the problem, he's reading the constitution like it's a holy book. He is smart (I think his main strength is basically vocabulary) but he lacks common sense.
 
berbatrick said:
That's part of the problem, he's reading the constitution like it's a holy book. He is smart (I think his main strength is basically vocabulary) but he lacks common sense.
Click to expand...

That's a good analogy yeah. Just like with religion, neither extreme is right. Neither strict originalism (the principle that the only thing that matters is the original intent of the framers and the hundreds of years of progress since doesn't matter) nor a strict purposive approach is ideal. Americans obviously shouldn't only care about what a few gentlemen farmers believed 300 years ago, but neither should they just feel free to chuck out whatever parts of the Constitution they don't like, like the Second Amendment. This is a pretty good article on point: http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/rights-are-bundled-not-a-la-carte/5328.

Tl;dr the Constitution is a foundational text (a grundnorm) and we pick and choose what parts of it we like at our own peril. Scalia provides balance to that process just as much as Sotomayor does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.