Quote (Black XistenZ @ 11 Apr 2020 04:02)
Here's a full transcript of the interview where he was talking about the judge:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/judge-curiel-trump-border-wall/index.htmlIt's really quite the tedious, rambling mess, Trump and the reporter are constantly talking past each other.
What I can take away from his ramblings is that he already held a grudge against this particular judge because of a case involving Trump university where Trump felt treated unfairly.
And then Trump clearly insinuates that the judge would have a pro-mexico bias should he ever preside over a case involving Trump's US-Mexico border wall. This is an example of a larger pattern with Trump: he believes that people are inextricably shaped by the social and cultural environment they grew up in, by the culture of their parents.. Is this a pessimistic, ugly worldview? Sure it is. Is it completely unreasonable to think that people who grew up under strong influence of a foreign culture or who still have family ties to a foreign country might have some bias in favor of this country/culture? Nope.
His comments about the judge went too far, I cant condone them - but they dont represent racism that I would consider "beyond the pale".
----
His comments about the Central Park Five were inflammatory, but I dont see an obvious racial undertone in them. It should also be noted that these comments have to be seen in the light of the situation at the time - from the mid-70s until the early 90s, NYC was a violent cesspool of crime and urban decline. Trump's call for a zero tolerance policy was much more justified and justifiable in 1989 than it would be today. Mayor Giuliani turned around NYC's fortunes a couple of years later by essentially implementing the exact sort of hard on crime policies that Trump was demanding in his Central Park Five newpaper ad.
----
The birtherism imho is the worst offender of them all.
That's the one instance where Trump really went too far imho. Where I draw my personal line is actually a good question. I would say when a politician is showing a consistent pattern of racism or deep racial resentment that frequently leads to policies which are racially discriminatory by intention.
On racial issues, Trump doesnt go beyond my personal acceptance limit, but for example someone like Steve King of Iowa does. In a German context, I can live with the stuff Gauland is saying and proposing, but Höcke is well past it.
I think our fundamental disagreement on this issue lies with my willingness to overlook missteps by politicians that I usually agree with, as long as there's no consistent pattern. You, by contrast, think that ANY amount of racism should disqualify from public office.
Btw, just curious: do you think that Virginia Governor Ralph Northam should have resigned over his blackface scandal? If really ANY amount of racism is enough to disqualify someone in your eyes, you would have to be in favor of him resigning over it.
only too far for you to make a silly excuse, obviously not too far to not support him - despite
YEARS of relentlessly pushing that racist conspiracy theory, in order to smear and delegitimise the first african american president in US history.
speaks for itself really that you're trying to characterise that as
'one instance', implying that it's forgivable because it's 'just one thing', a
'misstep', and not a consistent pattern - by twisting yourself into pretzels to excuse literally every other example of his obvious racism, not hesitating to make the dumbest and flimsiest, common sense-defying rationalisations, grasping at even the thinnest straw of deniability...
i mean, his comments about that judge for example, textbook examples of blatant racism, so bad that even his political allies went on the record to distance themselves from them - but you just can't help yourself, you HAVE to find a way to label them
'bad, but not racist', in order to support your laughable
'just one misstep' narrative.
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.