• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former RNC chair responds to comment about his race and position

MateoMtnClimber said:
Do you agree that the president's comments were racist or are you going to make a case that they weren't? For once in your existence on this forum, support a claim.
Click to expand...

Michael Steele does lay out a great case as to why Reagan and Buckley gops are leaving the gop ...
 
OpportunityCost said:
My point is you don't see all racism, selective outrage is about politics, not principle.
Click to expand...

What outrage did I deselect? Have you paid any attention to the outrage I have directed at liberals or Democrats on this forum?

My educated guess is that you don't agree with my current point, so you're aiming an unfounded criticism at me.
 
j-mac said:
Steele, the darling of MSNBC, it well known that he is the weakest form of any type of republican...It has NOTHING to do with his color, but everything to do with his loyalties.
Click to expand...

I think that Jeff Flake is more disloyal. Flake probably has a job promised by MSNBC maybe he will replace Steele as the
token republican he's more current.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
What outrage did I deselect? Have you paid any attention to the outrage I have directed at liberals or Democrats on this forum?

My educated guess is that you don't agree with my current point, so you're aiming an unfounded criticism at me.
Click to expand...

I am not allowed to disagree with your current point? Your outrage feels strained.
 
OpportunityCost said:
I am not allowed to disagree with your current point? Your outrage feels strained.
Click to expand...

You're talking in circles and not making any sense. I said that the president went on a racist rant about Judge Curiel. You typed three unrelated words that Justice Sotomayor once said. I asked you what your point was. You told me I'm selectively outraged by racism. I asked you how. Then you posted whatever this is above here.

You just don't like that I criticized the president, so you made up a story about my standards for denouncing racism. You never supported yourself. You never provided any evidence. You can't even answer a question without asking another question and providing no answer at all.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
You're talking in circles and not making any sense. I said that the president went on a racist rant about Judge Curiel. You typed three unrelated words that Justice Sotomayor once said. I asked you what your point was. You told me I'm selectively outraged by racism. I asked you how. Then you posted whatever this is above here.

You just don't like that I criticized the president, so you made up a story about my standards for denouncing racism. You never supported yourself. You never provided any evidence. You can't even answer a question without asking another question and providing no answer at all.
Click to expand...

There is a larger criticism than just you. There was little to no outrage over a clearly racist comment by Sotomayor that was seen as empowering rather than the identity politics its clearly is. Can you tell me how the two issues differ or do you seem them as similar?
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
I know you don't know how to express an opinion that isn't left-bashing, uninformed, and generalized nonsense, but let's go through an exercise. I'll describe a racist incident. You can explain to me how it's not racist. Because I know your posting style, I'll present one example at a time so you can't ignore the most inconvenient cases for you. Here's number 1.

TRUMP: I'll tell you what it has to do. I've had ruling after ruling after ruling that's been bad rulings, OK? I've been treated very unfairly. Before him, we had another judge. If that judge was still there, this case would have been over two years ago.

Let me just tell you, I've had horrible rulings, I've been treated very unfairly by this judge. Now, this judge is of Mexican heritage. I'm building a wall, OK? I'm building a wall. I am going to do very well with the Hispanics, the Mexicans --

TAPPER: So, no Mexican judge could ever be involved in a case that involves you?

TRUMP: Well, he's a member of a society, where -- you know, very pro-Mexico, and that's fine. It's all fine, but --

TAPPER: Except that you're calling into question his heritage.

TRUMP: I think he should recuse himself.

TAPPER: Because he's Latino?

TRUMP: Then, you also say, does he know the lawyer on the other side? I mean, does he know the lawyer? You know, a lot of people say --

TAPPER: But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about --

TRUMP: That's another problem.

TAPPER: You're invoking his race, talking about whether or not he can do his job.

TRUMP: Jake, I'm building a wall. OK? I'm building a wall. I'm trying to keep business out of Mexico. Mexico's fine.

TAPPER: But he's an American.

TRUMP: He's of Mexican heritage and he's very proud of it, as I am where I come from, my parents.

TAPPER: But he's an American. You keep talking about it's a conflict of interest because of Mexico.

. . .

TAPPER: Is it not -- when Hillary Clinton says this is a racist attack, and you reject that -- if you're saying he can't do his job because of his race, is that not the definition of racism?

TRUMP: No. I don't think so at all.

TAPPER: No?

TRUMP: No. He's proud of his heritage. I respect him for that.

TAPPER: But you're saying you can't do his job because of that.

TRUMP: Look, he's proud of his heritage, OK? I'm building a wall.

Now, I think I'm going to do very well with Hispanics because they are going to get jobs right now. They are going to get jobs. I think I'm going to do very well with Hispanics.

We are building a wall. He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico.

The answer is, he is giving us very unfair rulings, rulings that people can't even believe. This case should have ended years ago in summary judgment. The best lawyers, I have spoken to so many lawyers, they said, this is not a case. This is a case that should have ended.

TAPPER: I --

TRUMP: This judge is giving us unfair rulings. Now, I say why? Well, I'm building a wall, OK? And it's a wall between Mexico. Not another country.

TAPPER: But he's not from Mexico. He's from Indiana.

TRUMP: He's of Mexican heritage and he's very proud of it.

Defend that.
Click to expand...

Epic Trump ignorance. Epic.
 
OpportunityCost said:
There is a larger criticism than just you. There was little to no outrage over a clearly racist comment by Sotomayor that was seen as empowering rather than the identity politics its clearly is. Can you tell me how the two issues differ or do you seem them as similar?
Click to expand...

Finally. A real response. That's what I wanted. Thank you.

Yes, I do think the two cases as similar. I hold everyone to the same standards, which is why I stand up to every thoughtless poster who ignorantly criticizes me in this forum just because I put the word "Liberal" in my profile. That is identity politics, too, and it's a malignant cancer in DP.

You originally typed, "Wise Latina woman." That was the entire post. That's not the full quote; and it lacks any context, which is why I asked you to make a point.

"'I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life,' Sotomayor said in a speech at 2001 at the University of California, Berkeley, law school."

That is the full quote; and it's as racist as what the president said about Judge Curiel. Neither figure gets a pass from me.

The rest of the story matters and explains a lot about why I think the president is the worst public figure and one of the worst human beings alive in the country.

When challenged in her remarks, this happened.

"'I was trying to inspire (students) to believe their experiences would enrich the legal system,' Sotomayor said Tuesday. 'I was also trying to inspire them to believe they could become anything they wanted to become, just as I have.'

"She said the context of her words created a misunderstanding.

"'I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging,' she said. 'I do believe every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge, regardless of their background or life experience.'

"During questioning from Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, Sotomayor admitted it was a poor choice of words.

"'The words I chose, taking the rhetorical flourish, it was a bad idea,' she said. 'I do understand that there are some who have read this differently, and I understand why they might have concern.'"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sotomayor-explains-wise-latina-comment/

I would have appreciated a more direct and full-throated apology, but politics tends to corrupt people and their morals, especially during Senate confirmation hearings for the SCOTUS. Nevertheless, Sotomayor acknowledged her mistake, clarified it, explained it, and even revised the meaning that it originally conveyed.

What did the president do? He denied it, lied about it, spun it, and then doubled down by calling Curiel a "hater" and a "total disgrace".

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAFegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw0qgtwmkcZ8vXLkuUosSn-2

Every person makes mistakes. While I think that some mistakes should never be forgiven in public life (child molesting and wife beating, for example), I think a person can redeem part of her character if she reacts to a mistake she made appropriately and with dignity and humility.

The president is incapable of taking and unwilling to take accountability for any of his despicable behavior ever. That's why I think he's a waste of air and space and why I criticized him in this thread. As I expected, Anthony60 fled the scene with his tail between his legs because he is a dishonest poster who exists only to criticize liberals and never make a reasoned point. That's why I challenged you to do better than that.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
Finally. A real response. That's what I wanted. Thank you.

Yes, I do think the two cases as similar. I hold everyone to the same standards, which is why I stand up to every thoughtless poster who ignorantly criticizes me in this forum just because I put the word "Liberal" in my profile. That is identity politics, too, and it's a malignant cancer in DP.

You originally typed, "Wise Latina woman." That was the entire post. That's not the full quote; and it lacks any context, which is why I asked you to make a point.

"'I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life,' Sotomayor said in a speech at 2001 at the University of California, Berkeley, law school."

That is the full quote; and it's as racist as what the president said about Judge Curiel. Neither figure gets a pass from me.

The rest of the story matters and explains a lot about why I think the president is the worst public figure and one of the worst human beings alive in the country.

When challenged in her remarks, this happened.

"'I was trying to inspire (students) to believe their experiences would enrich the legal system,' Sotomayor said Tuesday. 'I was also trying to inspire them to believe they could become anything they wanted to become, just as I have.'

"She said the context of her words created a misunderstanding.

"'I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging,' she said. 'I do believe every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge, regardless of their background or life experience.'

"During questioning from Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, Sotomayor admitted it was a poor choice of words.

"'The words I chose, taking the rhetorical flourish, it was a bad idea,' she said. 'I do understand that there are some who have read this differently, and I understand why they might have concern.'"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sotomayor-explains-wise-latina-comment/

I would have appreciated a more direct and full-throated apology, but politics tends to corrupt people and their morals, especially during Senate confirmation hearings for the SCOTUS. Nevertheless, Sotomayor acknowledged her mistake, clarified it, explained it, and even revised the meaning that it originally conveyed.

What did the president do? He denied it, lied about it, spun it, and then doubled down by calling Curiel a "hater" and a "total disgrace".

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAFegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw0qgtwmkcZ8vXLkuUosSn-2

Every person makes mistakes. While I think that some mistakes should never be forgiven in public life (child molesting and wife beating, for example), I think a person can redeem part of her character if she reacts to a mistake she made appropriately and with dignity and humility.

The president is incapable of taking and unwilling to take accountability for any of his despicable behavior ever. That's why I think he's a waste of air and space and why I criticized him in this thread. As I expected, Anthony60 fled the scene with his tail between his legs because he is a dishonest poster who exists only to criticize liberals and never make a reasoned point. That's why I challenged you to do better than that.
Click to expand...

I cant help it you don't grasp the nuance from brevity. One quote compared to another and you don't get it? Perhaps you didn't want to.

As for her choice of words, she wanted to inspire people with racism? How's that work? She chose words that portrayed her as having a better sense of judgment than others based on ethnicity and gender. She only regretted her words because it was pointed out.

So, if her opinion is she can make better judgments because of race isn't it hypocritical to claim better judgments cannot be claimed because of race? Trump was wrong, sure. Was Sotomayor?
 
OpportunityCost said:
I cant help it you don't grasp the nuance from brevity. One quote compared to another and you don't get it? Perhaps you didn't want to.

As for her choice of words, she wanted to inspire people with racism? How's that work? She chose words that portrayed her as having a better sense of judgment than others based on ethnicity and gender. She only regretted her words because it was pointed out.

So, if her opinion is she can make better judgments because of race isn't it hypocritical to claim better judgments cannot be claimed because of race? Trump was wrong, sure. Was Sotomayor?
Click to expand...

Too many words for you to read? Jesus ****ing Christ. Half of my post is quotes from the materials I linked because I knew you would be too lazy and uninterested in mitigating your stupidity to open them. You apparently can't even be trusted to read the Cliff's Notes.

Your post is classic. You literally didn't read what I wrote and sent a bunch of nonsense that has nothing to do with it to me in response. You can't learn and you certainly can't teach when you're just bouncing from thread to thread vomiting bull**** all over the forum without trying to meaningfully contribute anything anywhere.

Here's a clue. This is a direct excerpt from my post that was too advanced for you: "That is the full quote; and it's as racist as what the president said about Judge Curiel. Neither figure gets a pass from me."
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
Too many words for you to read? Jesus ****ing Christ. Half of my post is quotes from the materials I linked because I knew you would be too lazy and uninterested in mitigating your stupidity to open them. You apparently can't even be trusted to read the Cliff's Notes.
Click to expand...

This is known as a long string of insults. Don't expect a response when you post like this.

Your post is classic. You literally didn't read what I wrote and sent a bunch of nonsense that has nothing to do with it to me in response. You can't learn and you certainly can't teach when you're just bouncing from thread to thread vomiting bull**** all over the forum without trying to meaningfully contribute anything anywhere.
Click to expand...

This is also known as a multiple set of insults. Don't expect a response when you post like this.

Here's a clue. This is a direct excerpt from my post that was too advanced for you: "That is the full quote; and it's as racist as what the president said about Judge Curiel. Neither figure gets a pass from me."
Click to expand...

Neither...but not what I asked. Was Sotomayor wrong? That's a simple yes or no please.
 
OpportunityCost said:
This is known as a long string of insults. Don't expect a response when you post like this.



This is also known as a multiple set of insults. Don't expect a response when you post like this.



Neither...but not what I asked. Was Sotomayor wrong? That's a simple yes or no please.
Click to expand...

Don't ask me for a response, never read it, and then spew more stupidity into the thread.

You're really going to keep writing without reading what I wrote? What a waste.

I've answered your question twice. Is there a literate grown-up at home that can read this one to you? Yes, Sotomayor was wrong. The president was wrong too. Only conservatives in this thread have denied that and insisted that the president is the second coming of Christ. It's pathetic.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
Don't ask me for a response, never read it, and then spew more stupidity into the thread.

You're really going to keep writing without reading what I wrote? What a waste.

I've answered your question twice. Is there a literate grown-up at home that can read this one to you? Yes, Sotomayor was wrong. The president was wrong too. Only conservatives in this thread have denied that and insisted that the president is the second coming of Christ. It's pathetic.
Click to expand...

That never should have been that hard. You say I can't read, but you have a very hard time answering questions specifically.

Second coming of Christ....pfft, that's a massive straw man.
 
OpportunityCost said:
That never should have been that hard. You say I can't read, but you have a very hard time answering questions specifically.

Second coming of Christ....pfft, that's a massive straw man.
Click to expand...

I told you three times. You refused to read it cuz too much words hurt your head.

Your turn. Were the president's comments abour Curiel racist and/or wrong?

I just want to mark our first ever agreement right here.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
I saw that part. Was he racist too? Two can play your stickler game about direct answers to specific questions.
Click to expand...

He's attributing racist characteristics to Curiel and in the process that he can't make legal decisions that impact Latinos because of his race, so yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom