ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags racism charges , Trump supporters

Reply
Old 10th January 2017, 04:15 PM   #1041
Mumbles
Illuminator
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,642
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
Fair enough. Then apparently it was the implementation of stop and frisk in NYC that was the problem, not the overall intent to control violence intelligently. I might at this point state that if the crux of the problem with gun violence were Black and Hispanic men then I question if that's profiling. It's stupid not to try and fix the problem where and by whom it's being perpetuated. Quite frankly, I don't see profiling as all bad. If people who wear pink are causing the problem then people wearing pink should be the primary (but not necessarily the only ones) who are stopped and frisked. I don't live in a high crime area (thank goodness), but I did live in a Chicago suburb for about 5 years. The problems then pale in comparison to today.
And that's the point, is it not? Trump's proposal is clearly foolish, unconstitutional, and racist. Actual work to solve problems would require time, work, and would end up looking nothing like his proposals.

Quote:
Whatever is causing it I don't know. But, it seems to me that Trump's threat to Emmanuel of bringing in Federal Law
At most, via Jeff Sessions, who would be the last person I would consider. If anything, he'd only make the situation worse.

Quote:
Well, it seems to me that folks in local neighborhoods should be willing to accept some inconvenience to solve significant problems in their neighborhoods. From what I've read that seems to be the case.
It seems to you. But are you there? You've already told us that you aren't, so...

Quote:
You know exactly where the false narrative started. It started primarily in Ferguson, MO with the "Hands up, don't shoot" lie and spread from there. There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that Police shoot minorities more than anyone else. The criminal part is obvious considering the historic number of police killed in 2016, many of them ambushed. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to determine why.
...and you walked directly into the trap.

Nope, Black Lives Matter was started after George Zimmerman was acquitted for the murder of Trayvon Martin. And since then, they have worked to avoid violence, including in Ferguson and in Baltimore. So for you to make them out to be a "criminal organization" is nonsense. This is easy to look into, for anyone who cares.

Is there evidence that police shoot more at unarmed black people? Yes.

*Could* a local Black Lives Matter group turn out to be a criminal group? Sure, but there's no evidence of this happening yet.

Your turn. Can you give evidence of any police shooting that BLM caused? And before you start, I'll note that the Dallas shooter openly stated that he did not like BLM, and the Baton Rouge shooter was actually a sovereign citizen.

...and yes, this is another trap.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 04:55 PM   #1042
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 19,539
Originally Posted by logger View Post
So can he be at odds with Mexicans over illegal immigration?

Can he be at odds with the Chinese on their "hardball trade policies" or is it just racism to the snowflakes on the left. I'm sure they'll call it racism, it fits the dishonest narrative all leftists push.
What does Mexican policy on immigration have to do with a qualified American judge? Or with Chinese trade policy? Is it not racism (or ethnocentrism if you prefer) to assume that the heritage of a person dooms him to favor a foreign country? It certainly has been considered an error in the past, when, for example, Americans of Japanese descent were presumed to be potential traitors.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 05:16 PM   #1043
Mumbles
Illuminator
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,642
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
What does Mexican policy on immigration have to do with a qualified American judge? Or with Chinese trade policy? Is it not racism (or ethnocentrism if you prefer) to assume that the heritage of a person dooms him to favor a foreign country? It certainly has been considered an error in the past, when, for example, Americans of Japanese descent were presumed to be potential traitors.
And that's the point, isn't it? Again, put 2 + 2 together, and it becomes obvious that Trump's, politically, a white supremacist. The only thing to ask is "Okay, now what?" Or rather "What do I do about it?"
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 05:16 PM   #1044
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 15,724
Seriously, the claim is that calling a Hispanic judge from Indiana a "Mexican" is NOT racist?
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 05:49 PM   #1045
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,723
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Seriously, the claim is that calling a Hispanic judge from Indiana a "Mexican" is NOT racist?
Seriously!

Is Mexican a race?

This is why we can't even discuss why our urban centers are war zones. The left loves the power they've gained at the expense of people's lives.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 05:52 PM   #1046
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,723
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
What does Mexican policy on immigration have to do with a qualified American judge? Or with Chinese trade policy? Is it not racism (or ethnocentrism if you prefer) to assume that the heritage of a person dooms him to favor a foreign country? It certainly has been considered an error in the past, when, for example, Americans of Japanese descent were presumed to be potential traitors.
It would be like me going in front of a liberal judge who knew how I felt about the contemptible left. I wouldn't feel like I was getting a fair trial either. But hey, it has to be racism.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 05:53 PM   #1047
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 14,561
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Seriously!

Is Mexican a race?

This is why we can't even discuss why our urban centers are war zones. The left loves the power they've gained at the expense of people's lives.
The way Trump used it, it was. The judge is a native born American. He's not from Mexico. Calling someone not from Mexico 'Mexican' is referring to race.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 05:56 PM   #1048
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,920
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
For what it's worth, I don't particularly care what Ziggurat has to say about my posts.
I'm sure he will cope with that.
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 05:57 PM   #1049
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,723
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
And that's the point, isn't it? Again, put 2 + 2 together, and it becomes obvious that Trump's, politically, a white supremacist. The only thing to ask is "Okay, now what?" Or rather "What do I do about it?"


Thinking Trump is a white supremacist is how far out of touch your thinking is. Anyone of the honest libs on here want to go that far and second, third this kind of thinking?

There is nothing you can do about it, we aren't about to allow anything to be done, not with over the top BS like that.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 05:58 PM   #1050
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,723
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
The way Trump used it, it was. The judge is a native born American. He's not from Mexico. Calling someone not from Mexico 'Mexican' is referring to race.
I,believe his words were "Mexican heretige" and no it is not a race.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 05:59 PM   #1051
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,963
Originally Posted by logger View Post
So can he be at odds with Mexicans over illegal immigration?
Please provide evidence that Judge Curiel ever engaged Trump about immigration, or, for that matter, spoke about it at all.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 06:06 PM   #1052
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,963
Originally Posted by logger View Post
It would be like me going in front of a liberal judge who knew how I felt about the contemptible left. I wouldn't feel like I was getting a fair trial either. But hey, it has to be racism.
I see. Huh. All people of Mexican heritage ever and forevermore believe as one when it comes to affairs south of the border. How interesting, I did not know that.

Y'know, you still seem to be "stumbling" on this critical thinking forum.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 06:08 PM   #1053
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 15,724
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
The way Trump used it, it was. The judge is a native born American. He's not from Mexico. Calling someone not from Mexico 'Mexican' is referring to race.
Assuming someone is Mexican because they are Hispanic is pretty much textbook racism. It's attributing a property to someone based solely on their race.

What next? Calling Obama an Aborigine isn't racist because Aborigine isn't a race, either?
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 06:09 PM   #1054
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,723
Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin View Post
I see. Huh. All people of Mexican heritage ever and forevermore believe as one when it comes to affairs south of the border. How interesting, I did not know that.

Y'know, you still seem to be "stumbling" on this critical thinking forum.
And you can't seem to stumble into a valid point.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 06:12 PM   #1055
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,723
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Assuming someone is Mexican because they are Hispanic is pretty much textbook racism. It's attributing a property to someone based solely on their race.

What next? Calling Obama an Aborigine isn't racist because Aborigine isn't a race, either?
Unless the judge actually does have Mexican heretige. Textbook racism it is not.

The definition of racism is thinking your race better than another. The liberal definition of racism is talking about another race.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 07:23 PM   #1056
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 19,539
Originally Posted by logger View Post
It would be like me going in front of a liberal judge who knew how I felt about the contemptible left. I wouldn't feel like I was getting a fair trial either. But hey, it has to be racism.
But again, what does that have to do with anything? The fact remains that Trump called an American judge unqualified because he apparently believed that a Mexican could not be a fair judge, and because he erroneously conflated a Mexican background with being Mexican. Calling a judge unqualified to do his job is not just talking about him. It's a declaration that his ability to do his job is inferior to what it should be. Whether that's technically racist or just ethnic bias is a quibble.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 07:56 PM   #1057
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,963
Originally Posted by logger View Post
And you can't seem to stumble into a valid point.
Read the sequence again. Move your lips if that helps.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 09:19 PM   #1058
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
But again, what does that have to do with anything? The fact remains that Trump called an American judge unqualified because he apparently believed that a Mexican could not be a fair judge, and because he erroneously conflated a Mexican background with being Mexican. Calling a judge unqualified to do his job is not just talking about him. It's a declaration that his ability to do his job is inferior to what it should be. Whether that's technically racist or just ethnic bias is a quibble.
But wasn't that Mexican judge a member of an organization that supports
"La Raza" ? I don't think the judge being Mexican had anything to do with his statement, it was that judge's affiliations that were the concern.

Typically in the legal process, you don't really want a judge with a personal bias against you hearing your case..........Justice is supposed to be blind.

From:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/06/me...eir-community/


"The SDLRLA is also an affiliate of the Hispanic National Bar Association. The former president of this group, Rafael Santiago, was on the board of the National Council of La Raza. La Raza views itself as a non-radical Latino advocacy group, but Hispanic civil rights leader Cesar Chavez called the movement “anti-gringo.”

Donald Trump has come out strongly against Judge Curiel saying he can’t be impartial because of his Mexican heritage. Likewise, the National Council of La Raza has come out strongly against Trump. The group’s president has previously accused Trump of “bigotry.” The NCLR has also previously called President Barack Obama “deporter-in-chief.”

However, the NCLR is not the only group the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association associates with that takes issues with Trump and his policies. Another group linked as part of the SDLRLA’s community is Reality Changers, which provides scholarships to low-income youth, some of which are illegal immigrants. It was previously reported by TheDC that Judge Curiel was on a selection committee that gave a scholarship to an illegal alien.

MANA de San Diego is also listed on the community page of the SDLRLA and likewise to Reality Changers they offer scholarships to illegal immigrant youth. Another group in the “community” is MALDEF. MALDEF previously spearheaded a lawsuit against several colleges for denying admission to illegal aliens."

A judge that is a member of or supported any of these groups in any way would certainly have a certain bias against Donald Trump and should not officiate over any case involving Trump. It may be the popular thing to view it as a racist remark by Trump but the facts support his position for the remark without racism being a factor. Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 09:53 PM   #1059
Delphic Oracle
Muse
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 563
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
But wasn't that Mexican judge a member of an organization that supports
"La Raza" ? I don't think the judge being Mexican had anything to do with his statement, it was that judge's affiliations that were the concern.

Typically in the legal process, you don't really want a judge with a personal bias against you hearing your case..........Justice is supposed to be blind.

From:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/06/me...eir-community/


"The SDLRLA is also an affiliate of the Hispanic National Bar Association. The former president of this group, Rafael Santiago, was on the board of the National Council of La Raza. La Raza views itself as a non-radical Latino advocacy group, but Hispanic civil rights leader Cesar Chavez called the movement “anti-gringo.”

Donald Trump has come out strongly against Judge Curiel saying he can’t be impartial because of his Mexican heritage. Likewise, the National Council of La Raza has come out strongly against Trump. The group’s president has previously accused Trump of “bigotry.” The NCLR has also previously called President Barack Obama “deporter-in-chief.”

However, the NCLR is not the only group the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association associates with that takes issues with Trump and his policies. Another group linked as part of the SDLRLA’s community is Reality Changers, which provides scholarships to low-income youth, some of which are illegal immigrants. It was previously reported by TheDC that Judge Curiel was on a selection committee that gave a scholarship to an illegal alien.

MANA de San Diego is also listed on the community page of the SDLRLA and likewise to Reality Changers they offer scholarships to illegal immigrant youth. Another group in the “community” is MALDEF. MALDEF previously spearheaded a lawsuit against several colleges for denying admission to illegal aliens."

A judge that is a member of or supported any of these groups in any way would certainly have a certain bias against Donald Trump and should not officiate over any case involving Trump. It may be the popular thing to view it as a racist remark by Trump but the facts support his position for the remark without racism being a factor. Chris B.
Nope, sorry. Your conclusion is not supported by the reasoning provided.

One can participate in social organizations related to one's own heritage and also not be biased in their professional judgments.

If you want to make the case that someone will make biased judgments against another who has disparaged their cultural heritage, you should probably find evidence of them making biased judgments against people who have disparaged their cultural heritage.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 10:04 PM   #1060
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 19,539
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
But wasn't that Mexican judge....
Stop right there. What Mexican judge?
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 11:57 PM   #1061
WilliamSeger
Graduate Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,459
Originally Posted by logger View Post
I,believe his words were "Mexican heretige" and no it is not a race.
It doesn't matter what "race" means to an anthropologist. If DJT thinks of Mexicans as a race, then discriminating against them or denigrating a stereotype of them would be "racist." He has done both.

Last edited by WilliamSeger; 10th January 2017 at 11:57 PM. Reason: typo
WilliamSeger is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 07:09 AM   #1062
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 19,539
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
It doesn't matter what "race" means to an anthropologist. If DJT thinks of Mexicans as a race, then discriminating against them or denigrating a stereotype of them would be "racist." He has done both.
Indeed. There's a good argument that race itself is a fiction, but that does not erase racism either. The conservative apologists for egregious behavior are fond of demanding the utmost linguistic precision from critics of the sloppiness and error of their champions. But whether you can technically call it racism, wrongful discrimination is what it is whether or not your science is good and whether or not you identify your victims correctly.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 07:52 AM   #1063
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 57,853
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Thinking Trump is a white supremacist is how far out of touch your thinking is.
He made wide-brush comments about latinos in the US, suggested banning Muslims from entering the country, has been sued for preventing black people from renting his properties, and has surrounded himself with racists in his cabinet, one of which is a prominent alt-right figure.

What conclusion would you reach?
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 08:02 AM   #1064
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,340
A. "Trump isn't racist because Mexican isn't a race."

B. "So you admit that Trump is Mexicanist. What shall we call that then?"

A. "Look, he's building a wall, okay? He's building a wall. And the judge is of Mexican heritage. He's building a wall."
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:36 AM   #1065
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
A. "Trump isn't racist because Mexican isn't a race."

B. "So you admit that Trump is Mexicanist. What shall we call that then?"

A. "Look, he's building a wall, okay? He's building a wall. And the judge is of Mexican heritage. He's building a wall."
Also because racism is purely, simply, and only thinking your race is superior to any others; and the only way to prove someone thinks that is if they say "hey, I think my race is superior to any others." Trump has never said this, therefore nothing else counts- QED, bite me, leftists!

(It must be comforting to live in a world that's so simply seen)

I personally don't have any problem with saying Trump's a bigot instead of a racist, if that's any better for his supporters.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:41 AM   #1066
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 15,724
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
Also because racism is purely, simply, and only thinking your race is superior to any others; and the only way to prove someone thinks that is if they say "hey, I think my race is superior to any others." Trump has never said this, therefore nothing else counts- QED, bite me, leftists!

(It must be comforting to live in a world that's so simply seen)

I personally don't have any problem with saying Trump's a bigot instead of a racist, if that's any better for his supporters.
Change the title of the thread to "Are all Trump supporters bigots?"?

Heh heh heh...
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 11:00 AM   #1067
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,693
Good grief! Trump team at the Sessions hearing just passed out a dossier citing an article about "how black Democrats stole votes"
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 11:21 AM   #1068
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,474
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
I know nothing about the case. Is the allegation false?
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 11:30 AM   #1069
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,693
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I know nothing about the case. Is the allegation false?
Yes. They keep trying to turn that black mark of case on his career into something else.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 11:43 AM   #1070
Delphic Oracle
Muse
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 563
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I know nothing about the case. Is the allegation false?
The accused dropped off absentee ballots (after being told maybe they should use absentee ballots to increase turnout) which were immediately broken into by FBI agents who had been lying in wait for them to mail them. Many of the voters were then bussed over 100 miles away to be fingerprinted and processed (like criminals?) and testify to a grand jury while surrounded by armed local and federal law enforcement agents. Many of them declared as part of their testimony they would not ever vote again. With the exception of several members of one family group, none of the witnesses testified against the activists, acknowledging that they had authorized them to assist in filling out their ballots or pointed out a mistake and they had made the corrections themselves. Given the level of intimidation the witnesses were subjected to, only one family group buckling is a pretty inspiring show of solidarity. I'm amazed that it actually went to trial since the vast majority of the witnesses all refuted the claims of ballot tampering. As usual, it boils down to the prosecutor passing the buck to the grand jury (as if they have no control over the outcome). This is where a clever quote about a ham sandwich is usually invoked :9.

I think the general purpose of this 'voting fraud' investigation/trial (this isn't a new goal, only the tactics have changed) is quite clear.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 12:16 PM   #1071
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,474
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
The accused dropped off absentee ballots (after being told maybe they should use absentee ballots to increase turnout) which were immediately broken into by FBI agents who had been lying in wait for them to mail them. Many of the voters were then bussed over 100 miles away to be fingerprinted and processed (like criminals?) and testify to a grand jury while surrounded by armed local and federal law enforcement agents. Many of them declared as part of their testimony they would not ever vote again. With the exception of several members of one family group, none of the witnesses testified against the activists, acknowledging that they had authorized them to assist in filling out their ballots or pointed out a mistake and they had made the corrections themselves. Given the level of intimidation the witnesses were subjected to, only one family group buckling is a pretty inspiring show of solidarity. I'm amazed that it actually went to trial since the vast majority of the witnesses all refuted the claims of ballot tampering. As usual, it boils down to the prosecutor passing the buck to the grand jury (as if they have no control over the outcome). This is where a clever quote about a ham sandwich is usually invoked :9.

I think the general purpose of this 'voting fraud' investigation/trial (this isn't a new goal, only the tactics have changed) is quite clear.
The article says "25 voters said they had not given their ballots to the Turners or Hogue for mailing." There also seem to be a lot of accusations of altered ballots with names other than Shelton. Where are you getting your version of events from? It's not obvious to me what the truth here is.

What is your source for your version of events? You seem pretty confident of it.

Last edited by shuttlt; 11th January 2017 at 12:43 PM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 12:59 PM   #1072
Mumbles
Illuminator
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,642
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Seriously, the claim is that calling a Hispanic judge from Indiana a "Mexican" is NOT racist?
Yep, that's the claim.

You can pursue it, or just ignore it in favor of other fights. We actually need both.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 01:09 PM   #1073
Delphic Oracle
Muse
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 563
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
The article says "25 voters said they had not given their ballots to the Turners or Hogue for mailing." There also seem to be a lot of accusations of altered ballots with names other than Shelton. Where are you getting your version of events from? It's not obvious to me what the truth here is.

What is your source for your version of events? You seem pretty confident of it.
The NYT article linked above, but mostly my numerous readings on this case over the years.

Quote:
When the Turners and Hogue went to trial, in June 1985, their supporters came in such numbers that entry to the courtroom in Selma required a ticket. Witness after witness among the 17 voters who testified said that while they’d received assistance from the Turners and Hogue to fill out their ballots, they’d done so willingly. The exceptions were members of a single family of six, who said their ballots were altered without their permission.
I searched the article and could not find the quote you refer to...or even "25", all instances of the word "ballot" don't connect to the claim you've just made.

So what is your source?
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 01:22 PM   #1074
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,474
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
The NYT article linked above, but mostly my numerous readings on this case over the years.



I searched the article and could not find the quote you refer to...or even "25", all instances of the word "ballot" don't connect to the claim you've just made.

So what is your source?
This was the source for the quote. I assumed it was the article being discussed in the tweet.
how-black-democrats-stole-votes-in-alabama-and-jeff-sessions-tried-to-stop-it

If you then go to the Grand Jury indictment, there is then a list of the charges in which a bunch of names get listed for people who supposedly had their ballot altered.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 01:32 PM   #1075
Mader Levap
Muse
 
Mader Levap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 554
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Only the left can be completely wiped out, totally lose ALL their political power and it be considered no big deal.
I dont see where you read that I do not consider it "big deal", but we all know that you live in your own reality anyway.

Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
Originally Posted by Mader Levap View Post
Assertion about "policies of the dems being absolutely unpopular" is hollow and baseless lie, since it relies on electoral votes and seats, not actual votes of people that you for some strange reason simply ignore.
You are apparently not American, so I'll forgive your obvious ignorance of the voting system in the US. You really need to inform yourself about that system prior to making such erroneous conclusions that are so wrong.
That was your claim: "policies of the dems are absolutely unpopular". Not "democrats lost elections". No one disputes latter claim.

It is not my problem if you have issues with distinguishing "how you win presidential/senate election in USA" from "how popular are policies of party X in USA".

Protip: one involves electoral votes and seats, other involves actual votes casted by people... or maybe polls, but we have better data - actual votes.

In fact, I addressed this very issue in quote that you answered, so we can add reading comprehesion (or rather lack of it) to your list of problems.

Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
He's conflating the Presidential election with the voting for Representatives and Senators along with State Governors and State Legislators.
Nope. You are one pretending that popularity of policies of party X and election results must be exactly same thing. In other words, you conflate these two things. Projecting much?
__________________
Sanity is overrated.
Mader Levap is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 01:43 PM   #1076
Delphic Oracle
Muse
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 563
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
This was the source for the quote. I assumed it was the article being discussed in the tweet.
how-black-democrats-stole-votes-in-alabama-and-jeff-sessions-tried-to-stop-it

If you then go to the Grand Jury indictment, there is then a list of the charges in which a bunch of names get listed for people who supposedly had their ballot altered.
Well then you're repeating the claims of the legal argument against them which was rejected in court. Probably in part because of testimony offered by the alleged victims saying the opposite of what the prosecutors claimed.

That's not jury nullification (an excuse which contains an embedded assertion of racial solidarity overriding justice), that's what happens to weak cases that should never have gone forward.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 02:29 PM   #1077
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,474
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Well then you're repeating the claims of the legal argument against them which was rejected in court. Probably in part because of testimony offered by the alleged victims saying the opposite of what the prosecutors claimed.

That's not jury nullification (an excuse which contains an embedded assertion of racial solidarity overriding justice), that's what happens to weak cases that should never have gone forward.
Perhaps. It seems like something rather similar happened a few years later in a neighbouring county leading to convictions. Given that both sides seem to be agreed that at least one side are liars, I don't see how we can trust the summary of the case given by either the pro or anti-Trump camps.

This seems to be a fairly detailed summary including arguments and testimony relating to the case:
http://www.freelawreporter.org/flr3d...8.85-7518.html

Under the "evidence at trial" section, we have:

Quote:
The only testimony, presented at the trial in case number 85-00014, which is included in the record on this present appeal, is the testimony of Lillian Fuller, the testimony of Will Fuller, and the transcribed testimony of Hogue in the course of his appearance before a grand jury prior to the return of the indictment in case number 85-00014. Hogue's grand jury testimony was offered by the government at trial as a part of its case. However, the record on the present appeal does contain a transcript of the closing arguments of the prosecutors in case number 85-00014, as well as a portion of the closing argument by one of Hogue's counsel. From those arguments, it can be discerned that there was testimony concerning 11 separate episodes involving absentee voters: one episode involved the 7 Sheltons; another, Morgan Harris and Fannie M. Williams; and other, distinct episodes each involved one of the following voters: Willie Lee, Pearl Brown, Mary Louise Pryor, Ethel G. Ford, Maggie Fuller, Mattie Perry, Angela Miree, Zayda Gibbs, and Will Fuller. The 11 episodes occurred at separate places and times. As to each episode, there was a separate witness or combination of witnesses for the prosecution. In the case of Willie Lee, his testimony was that he had never executed an absentee ballot, although a ballot purporting to be his had been mailed to the election officials. In the case of each of the other 17, the prosecution testimony was directed to whether the voter had executed a ballot showing the voter's choices among the candidates, whether the ballot had been changed later but before it was received in the mail by the election officials, and whether the voter had or had not authorized the changes to be made.

21
Specifically, as to count 24, and paragraph 5(m) of count 1, the government presented the testimony of Will Fuller and his wife, Lillian Fuller, and testimony given earlier to a grand jury by Hogue.

22
Lillian Fuller testified that she was 73 years of age as of July 1985, and that Will Fuller was 91 years of age as of September 1, 1984, was blind and ill, and had been voting for some time by absentee ballot. Concerning the September 4, 1984 Democratic primary, she testified that: Hogue came to the Fullers' house in connection with the absentee voting; Lillian prepared the absentee ballot for Will Fuller, marked a vote for Reese Billingslea, made no erasures on the ballot, and handed the marked ballot to Hogue, unsealed, to be notarized and mailed. Shown the ballot at trial in the form it had been received by election officials, Lillian Fuller testified that on it the vote for Billingslea had been marked out. She testified that at some time more than a week later and after September 4, 1984, Hogue had come again to the Fullers' house; Lillian Fuller, Will Fuller, and Hogue were those present at the time. She testified that Hogue said: he had rubbed the name off through a mistake; "they" were after Lillian Fuller, Will Fuller and Hogue; and if Lillian Fuller "would get with Hogue" and say she helped rub it off, "it will be all over with." Lillian Fuller testified that she had not given Hogue permission to rub it off and she had not rubbed it off, and that she told Hogue she would not say she had helped him rub it off.

23
Will Fuller testified that he intended to vote for Billingslea. He testified that: some time after the first of the year 1985, Hogue brought a calendar to the Fullers' house; Will Fuller had no conversation with Hogue at that time; and Will Fuller heard Hogue and Lillian Fuller talking at that time, but Will Fuller could not understand what Hogue was saying to her.

24
In his testimony before the grand jury, Hogue stated that: The League was formed in 1962. Prior to the September 4, 1984, Democratic primary, the League activists had frequently arranged for voters to obtain absentee ballots, had tried to persuade the absentee voters to vote for the League's slate, had assisted absentee voters in marking their ballots, and had arranged for the ballots to be mailed to the elections officials. Hogue was one of several League community leaders, each of whom assisted a certain group of people in this way. Many of these people were elderly. The League helped these people in other ways, unrelated to absentee voting, such as transporting them for medical care and assisting them to use the food stamp program. The League endorsed a slate of candidates in the September 4, 1984, Democratic primary. Hogue would go to the homes of the persons to whom the blank absentee ballots had been mailed by the elections officials. He would try to persuade them to vote for the League slate. He would help them to mark their ballots themselves or he would do the marking. In either case, the choices were made by the voters, not by Hogue. When marks were erased or scratched out and new marks made, this was done by the voters or, if the voter consented, by Hogue. Hogue would then take the executed ballots, whether or not the voters had voted for the League's slate, and mail the ballots to the elections officials. Hogue, Will Fuller, and Lillian Fuller were present at the Fullers' house one day prior to the September 4, 1984, primary; Hogue was calling outthe names of the candidates the League had endorsed and Lillian Fuller was marking the ballot; when she gave Hogue the marked ballot, he looked at it and told her she had got the wrong name, referring to Billingslea; Hogue talked to her about that and convinced her; she said to Hogue that she had marked the ballot for Billingslea in ink; Hogue told her he could get the ink off, and Hogue made the change.10
Are the claims of these other people that their votes were tampered with not mentioned in the NYT article? I couldn't find the link.

I've tried to find details from the actual trial, rather than this contempt one relating to it, but so far I'm stumped.

Last edited by shuttlt; 11th January 2017 at 02:41 PM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 03:57 PM   #1078
Delphic Oracle
Muse
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 563
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Perhaps. It seems like something rather similar happened a few years later in a neighbouring county leading to convictions. Given that both sides seem to be agreed that at least one side are liars, I don't see how we can trust the summary of the case given by either the pro or anti-Trump camps.
A successful prosecution for a similar charge in a different place doesn't have any bearing on the unsuccessful prosecution, though. Nor do either of them necessarily prove or disprove the motives behind the cases. How many whites were brought up on similar charges in the same time frame? Are we to believe that no white people were committing any political crimes in Alabama?

Look at the title of the article, for example. It kinda feeds right into the idea that this is all predicated on the notion that 'black people steal stuff.' It's not "Political Activists Alter Ballots" no, it's "Black Democrats Stole Votes."

As my interest in the case predates Trump's recent political career, it does no good to try and frame in terms of being pro- or anti-Trump.

Quote:
This seems to be a fairly detailed summary including arguments and testimony relating to the case:
http://www.freelawreporter.org/flr3d...8.85-7518.html

Under the "evidence at trial" section, we have:



Are the claims of these other people that their votes were tampered with not mentioned in the NYT article? I couldn't find the link.

I've tried to find details from the actual trial, rather than this contempt one relating to it, but so far I'm stumped.
The NYT article is highlighting the problem of the manner in which the investigation was conducted (bussing people to different jurisdictions where more white people were on the grand jury and surrounding them with armed guards) and the numerous conflicting testimonies that resulted.

Yes, prosecutors can railroad a grand jury, this is a known thing. There's no defense lawyer to object or judge to sustain it, no cross-examination, and the prosecutor can make veiled threats about punishment for failure to respond in a certain way. They can badger a witness (prompting fearful or insecure mannerisms and speech that erodes credibility in the eyes of the grand jury) or praise them as they see fit, etc.

Why a prosecutor would railroad a weak case to the courtroom is anyone's guess. Usually, though, it boils down to their being locked onto a political or personal goal rather than a rational, legal one.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 04:25 PM   #1079
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,474
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
A successful prosecution for a similar charge in a different place doesn't have any bearing on the unsuccessful prosecution, though. Nor do either of them necessarily prove or disprove the motives behind the cases.
True, but presumably it implies some level of plausibility to the original claim if one puts any weight at all behind the results of the trials.

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
How many whites were brought up on similar charges in the same time frame? Are we to believe that no white people were committing any political crimes in Alabama?
I don't know. According to the story it was black democrats who made the original complaint. Were their complaints about voter fraud in majority white counties that were being ignored?

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Look at the title of the article, for example. It kinda feeds right into the idea that this is all predicated on the notion that 'black people steal stuff.' It's not "Political Activists Alter Ballots" no, it's "Black Democrats Stole Votes."
That doesn't alter the truth of the article. If it was black activists who were specifically targeting black voters, then I don't see why they should avoid mentioning it. Clearly under Trump we are going to see a lot of things put rather more directly than we are used to.

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
As my interest in the case predates Trump's recent political career, it does no good to try and frame in terms of being pro- or anti-Trump.
OK. Could you then explain the difference between this:

Quote:
When the Turners and Hogue went to trial, in June 1985, their supporters came in such numbers that entry to the courtroom in Selma required a ticket. Witness after witness among the 17 voters who testified said that while they’d received assistance from the Turners and Hogue to fill out their ballots, they’d done so willingly. The exceptions were members of a single family of six, who said their ballots were altered without their permission.
And the testimony mentioned in the notes from the contempt trial referring back to the original trial where it says for example "Willie Lee, his testimony was that he had never executed an absentee ballot, although a ballot purporting to be his had been mailed to the election officials" and "Lillian prepared the absentee ballot for Will Fuller, marked a vote for Reese Billingslea, made no erasures on the ballot, and handed the marked ballot to Hogue, unsealed, to be notarized and mailed. Shown the ballot at trial in the form it had been received by election officials, Lillian Fuller testified that on it the vote for Billingslea had been marked out."

Your quote implies it was a single family who testified to wrongdoing. The very limited details I have been able to find on the trial testimony appear to show that that isn't true.

Last edited by shuttlt; 11th January 2017 at 04:45 PM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 04:52 PM   #1080
Delphic Oracle
Muse
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 563
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
True, but presumably it implies some level of plausibility to the original claim if one puts any weight at all behind the results of the trials.
No, the outcome of one case has zero implications of the validity of another case. That's free association based on nothing but the fact they faced the same charge. A prosecutor successfully getting a conviction on a murder case is not evidence that defendants in other murder cases are more likely to be guilty.

Quote:
I don't know. According to the story it was black democrats who made the original complaint. Were their complaints about voter fraud in majority white counties that were being ignored?
I'm not interested in the racial makeup of counties, I'm interested if similar complaints against whites were made and whether they were indicted and went to trial. I'd be interested to know if witnesses in such a case were bused to other jurisdictions and intimidated in similar ways.

Quote:
That doesn't alter the truth of the statement. If it was black activists who were specifically targeting black voters, then I don't see why they should avoid mentioning it. Clearly under Trump we are going to see a lot of things put rather more directly than we are used to.
How is including the race and political party of the suspects and an incorrect description of the crime 'more direct' to you than simply stating the correct criminal offense? Incorrect and extraneous information seems like the opposite.

Maybe 'more direct' means 'less dog whistles'?

Quote:
OK. Could you then explain the difference between this:


And the testimony mentioned in the notes from the contempt trial referring back to the original trial where it says for example "Willie Lee, his testimony was that he had never executed an absentee ballot, although a ballot purporting to be his had been mailed to the election officials" and "Lillian prepared the absentee ballot for Will Fuller, marked a vote for Reese Billingslea, made no erasures on the ballot, and handed the marked ballot to Hogue, unsealed, to be notarized and mailed. Shown the ballot at trial in the form it had been received by election officials, Lillian Fuller testified that on it the vote for Billingslea had been marked out."
I don't know what you're trying to get at here.

The problem is the numerous conflicting evidences and even contradictory testimony of the same witness at different stages of the process. That was apparently a problem for the jury, too, since they didn't convict any of them. Either the case was bungled and pushed to trial against all sensible reason or people's testimony flipped between grand jury investigation and trial (suggestive of the witnesses feeling intimidated to 'cooperate' with investigators).

Beyond all of this, though, Sessions has opened his mouth and made racially inflammatory remarks on enough occasions that his impartiality as a legal advocate for all Americans is suspect and that alone should disqualify him.

What does it say about a guy if he herds black people living in Alabama onto buses and drives them 150+ miles away to another jurisdiction and surrounds them with armed guards to secure their testimony?

Kinda takes a certain lack of awareness of racial context to miss the problems with that kind of 'investigation' procedure.

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 11th January 2017 at 04:55 PM.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.