Donald Trump Presidential Campaign Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mary_Gail_36 said:
Judge Curiel is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. It is the Bar Association of San Diegos Latinas and Latinos.

sdlrla.com/

Trump’s spokesperson got that mistaken with National Council of La Raza.

Prior to being a Federal Judge, he was an Assistant US Attorney, who prosecuted drug cartels.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Mary, for the correct information.
 
Why Some of the Smartest Progressives I Know Will Vote for Trump over Hillary
Why do progressives reject Hillary Clinton? The highly educated, high-income, finance-literate readers of my website, Naked Capitalism, don’t just overwhelmingly favor Bernie Sanders. They also say “Hell no!” to Hillary Clinton to the degree that many say they would even vote for Donald Trump over her.
And they don’t come by these views casually. Their conclusions are the result of careful study of her record and her policy proposals. They believe the country can no longer endure the status quo that Clinton represents—one of crushing inequality, and an economy that is literally killing off the less fortunate—and any change will be better. One reader writes:
Click to expand...
“If Clinton is the nominee 9 out of 10 friends I polled will [do one of three things]:
A. Not vote for president in November.
B. Vote for Trump.
C. Write in Bernie as a protest vote.
"We are all fifty-somethings with money and college educations. Oh, and we are all registered Democrats.”
Click to expand...
Or as another reader puts it:
“I don’t want to vote for Trump. I want to vote for Bernie. But I have reached the point where I feel like voting for Trump against Clinton would be doing my patriotic duty. … If the only way to escape a trap is to gnaw off my leg, I’d like to think I’d have the guts to do it.”
Click to expand...
 
Thorolfr said:
A more fitting analogy would be the “San Diego Italian American Lawyers Association” or the “San Diego Irish American Lawyers Association.” Being Latino just means that someone is of Latin American origin and is about national origin, culture and language, not about race. So Pope Francis who is from Argentina could have been a member of the La Raza Lawyers Association if he was a lawyer instead of pope even though he’s white and is of Italian ancestry.
Click to expand...
Nooooooo.

“La Raza” is a term of art. It means “The Race”. There is no Irish “race” or Italian “race”, and nobody thinks there is. La Raza is applied to people of mixed Spanish and Indian ancestry. Beyond that, understandings vary. It can include or exclude Mayans, for example, who are mostly all “Indio”. But it does not include people whose extraction is entirely European, African or Asian.

It really isn’t different from saying “the white race”, despite the fact that both are a bit vague on the edges. It’s just that expressing pride and solidarity as a member of “the white race” is very much frowned upon, while pride and solidarity among members of other self-described 'races", particularly “La Raza” is not.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Nooooooo.

“La Raza” is a term of art. It means “The Race”. There is no Irish “race” or Italian “race”, and nobody thinks there is. La Raza is applied to people of mixed Spanish and Indian ancestry. Beyond that, understandings vary. It can include or exclude Mayans, for example, who are mostly all “Indio”. But it does not include people whose extraction is entirely European, African or Asian.

It really isn’t different from saying “the white race”, despite the fact that both are a bit vague on the edges. It’s just that expressing pride and solidarity as a member of “the white race” is very much frowned upon, while pride and solidarity among members of other self-described 'races", particularly “La Raza” is not.
Click to expand...
The Spanish term has more than one meaning. Raza as a cognate might not translate completely into race in English.

It’s a Bar Association.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Nooooooo.

“La Raza” is a term of art. It means “The Race”. There is no Irish “race” or Italian “race”, and nobody thinks there is. La Raza is applied to people of mixed Spanish and Indian ancestry. Beyond that, understandings vary. It can include or exclude Mayans, for example, who are mostly all “Indio”. But it does not include people whose extraction is entirely European, African or Asian.

It really isn’t different from saying “the white race”, despite the fact that both are a bit vague on the edges. It’s just that expressing pride and solidarity as a member of “the white race” is very much frowned upon, while pride and solidarity among members of other self-described 'races", particularly “La Raza” is not.
Click to expand...
This is from the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association:
Many people incorrectly translate the name, “La Raza,” as “the race.” While it is true that one meaning of “raza” in Spanish is indeed “race,” in Spanish, as in English and any other language, words can and do have multiple meanings. As noted in several online dictionaries, “La Raza” means “the people” or “the community.”
Translating our name as “the race” is not only inaccurate, it is factually incorrect. “Hispanic” is an ethnicity, not a race. As anyone who has ever met a Dominican American, Mexican American, or Spanish American can attest, Hispanics can be and are members of any and all races.
Click to expand...
The term “La Raza” has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as “the people” or, according to some scholars, as “the Hispanic people of the New World.” The term was coined by Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos to reflect the fact that the people of Latin America are a mixture of many of the world’s races, cultures, and religions. In contrast, the term “Hispanic” has its origins in the 1970 U.S. Census, and the term “Latino” was officially adopted in 1997 by the U.S. Government in the ethnonym “Hispanic or Latino.”
Click to expand...
Mistranslating “La Raza” to mean “the race” implies that it is a term meant to exclude others. In fact, the full term coined by Vasconcelos, “La Raza Cósmica,” meaning the “cosmic people,” was developed to reflect not purity but the mixture inherent in the Hispanic people. This is an inclusive concept, meaning that Hispanics share with all other peoples of the world a common heritage and destiny.
Click to expand...
sdlrla.com/the-name/

In this situation, it seems best to accept what the La Raza Lawyers Association says they mean when they use the term “La Raza” instead of imposing your own interpretation of what you have decided they must mean.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
The Spanish term has more than one meaning. Raza as a cognate might not translate completely into race in English.

It’s a Bar Association.
Click to expand...
Well, we’ve seen “community” offered as its meaning on this thread when there is the perfectly useable Spanish word “comunidad” for community. No, it means “the race” and there’s no getting around it, and it has a particular meaning. Now, one can assert that it is not intended in a hostile manner like “White Lawyer’s Association” would be thought to be, but one cannot deny its racial exclusivity. As a person of entirely western European ancestry with an Anglo-Norman name, I’m not a member of “La Raza” and nobody in La Raza would say I am.

It’s racial, pure and simple. And this judge is a member of it. Given the politics of immigration, he should have recused himself. Judges are supposed to do that to avoid even the “appearance of impropriety” or imaginable bias. But this judge didn’t.

Again, if a judge was, or had ever been, a member of something called the “White Lawyers’ Association” or the “European-American Lawyers’ Association”, would anybody think it right that he should hear a case in which a party was the NAACP or “Black Lives Matter”? Of course not. And we would hear howls of indignation from the left if he did.
 
Thorolfr said:
This is from the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association:

sdlrla.com/the-name/

In this situation, it seems best to accept what the La Raza Lawyers Association says they mean when they use the term “La Raza” instead of imposing your own interpretation of what you have decided they must mean.
Click to expand...
The Race still means The Race, no matter how anybody tries to excuse it, and it is applied exclusively to people of a particular ancestry.

The KKK has a much less ugly explanation of what they are too. But the reality is they are racially exclusive and exclusive based on ancestry.

La Raza is no different, and neither is La Raza Lawyer’s Association.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Well, we’ve seen “community” offered as its meaning on this thread when there is the perfectly useable Spanish word “comunidad” for community. No, it means “the race” and there’s no getting around it, and it has a particular meaning. Now, one can assert that it is not intended in a hostile manner like “White Lawyer’s Association” would be thought to be, but one cannot deny its racial exclusivity. As a person of entirely western European ancestry with an Anglo-Norman name, I’m not a member of “La Raza” and nobody in La Raza would say I am.

It’s racial, pure and simple. And this judge is a member of it. Given the politics of immigration, he should have recused himself. Judges are supposed to do that to avoid even the “appearance of impropriety” or imaginable bias. But this judge didn’t.
Click to expand...
Claiming that you know what people intend or believe better than what they do and what they have stated about themselves seems rather presumptuous.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Well, we’ve seen “community” offered as its meaning on this thread when there is the perfectly useable Spanish word “comunidad” for community. No, it means “the race” and there’s no getting around it, and it has a particular meaning. Now, one can assert that it is not intended in a hostile manner like “White Lawyer’s Association” would be thought to be, but one cannot deny its racial exclusivity. As a person of entirely western European ancestry with an Anglo-Norman name, I’m not a member of “La Raza” and nobody in La Raza would say I am.

It’s racial, pure and simple. And this judge is a member of it. Given the politics of immigration, he should have recused himself. Judges are supposed to do that to avoid even the “appearance of impropriety” or imaginable bias. But this judge didn’t.

Again, if a judge was, or had ever been, a member of something called the “White Lawyers’ Association” or the “European-American Lawyers’ Association”, would anybody think it right that he should hear a case in which a party was the NAACP or “Black Lives Matter”? Of course not. And we would hear howls of indignation from the left if he did.
Click to expand...
Should Judges that ex-members of the Italian American Lawyers Association (iala.info/) be prevented from sitting on any case that were one or the other parties said something derogatory about Italians? Would the same apply to ex-members of the Christian Trial Lawyers Association (christiantriallawyers.org/) who might be asked to judge on a case where a person said something about Christians?

Shades of McCarthyism (Are you now or have you ever been).
 
sallybutler said:
Should Judges that ex-members of the Italian American Lawyers Association (iala.info/) be prevented from sitting on any case that were one or the other parties said something derogatory about Italians? Would the same apply to ex-members of the Christian Trial Lawyers Association (christiantriallawyers.org/) who might be asked to judge on a case where a person said something about Christians?

Shades of McCarthyism (Are you now or have you ever been).
Click to expand...
Actually, I think those judges should recuse if the statements were anything but some obscure utterance of little consequence or meaning. But notoriety about Trump’s statements about Mexico, illegal immigrants, etc is very high, and they were very assertive statements made repeatedly.

The Judge should have bowed out. I have seen judges recuse for less. But this judge didn’t, and the fact that he didn’t is, in itself, a questionable thing.

And my understanding is that Judge Curiel is still a member of the group and is on a committee whose purpose is to get scholarships for illegal immigrants while Trump is trying to stem the tide of illegal immigrants.

No, it’s just not good that Curiel stayed in the case. Did he think nobody would find out that he’s a member of a race-based organization opposed to Trump’s political policies, or did he figure people would and just didn’t care what anybody thought?
 
Ridgerunner said:
Actually, I think those judges should recuse if the statements were anything but some obscure utterance of little consequence or meaning. But notoriety about Trump’s statements about Mexico, illegal immigrants, etc is very high, and they were very assertive statements made repeatedly.

The Judge should have bowed out. I have seen judges recuse for less. But this judge didn’t, and the fact that he didn’t is, in itself, a questionable thing.

And my understanding is that Judge Curiel is still a member of the group and is on a committee whose purpose is to get scholarships for illegal immigrants while Trump is trying to stem the tide of illegal immigrants.

No, it’s just not good that Curiel stayed in the case. Did he think nobody would find out that he’s a member of a race-based organization opposed to Trump’s political policies, or did he figure people would and just didn’t care what anybody thought?
Click to expand...
It seems like no matter what did judge had, you would of gone after him.

If he was black or you would of called it liberal agenda. You guys complain about how childish liberals act but conservatives are on the same boat. Which is worse bc, conservatives should be more mature.
 
chero23 said:
It seems like no matter what did judge had, you would of gone after him.

If he was black or you would of called it liberal agenda. You guys complain about how childish liberals act but conservatives are on the same boat. Which is worse bc, conservatives should be more mature.
Click to expand...
No. I just know some judges myself, and I know they recuse themselves for less controversial reasons than this. This judge is a member of a “Hispanics only” organization and is on a committee that raises scholarship money for illegals. And here’s Trump wanting to control the entry of illegals. If that isn’t potentially subject to at least allegations of bias, I don’t know what is. And, during an election, the Judge decided to release all of the allegations (not proved or disproved yet) of the people who claim, rightly or wrongly, to have been skinned by Trump University.

And no one is supposed to even imagine that he acted politically?

I’m not saying Judge Curiel is a racist or that he is trying to help Hillary Clinton. But it does make one wonder, and that’s exactly what judges are supposed to avoid.
 
QUOTE=(name removed by moderator);13942620]Trump gives the best speeches himself as to why he would be bad for your nation’s foreign policy with no aid needed.
👍
His latest utterings (well, as reported in the media) make him appear increasingly flaky, petulant, and with a quick anger trigger. Not someone I’d trust in foreign relations.

Hopefully Americans will come to see that, whatever he might promise to do for you on the domestic front, the position he holds makes the relationship with the rest of the world every bit as important. A benign but weird person can be overlooked (by the rest of the world) in the role of POTUS, but to me he looks more and more dangerous because he has a very short fuse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top