Monday, June 6, 2016

If you oppose illegal immigration, suspecting a Mexican-American judge may be biased is called 'sanity'

I keep saying that Trump's value as a candidate is immediate, rather than hypothetical. The payoff for candidate Trump is not 'If he gets elected' but 'right here and now'.

Trump's suspicions about the bias of the judge is not a bizarre conspiracy theory that has appeared suddenly and without cause from Malicior, the Hatred Dimension. It's, at the very least, a reasonable possibility. In other contexts - namely, in contexts where the authority in question was white - bias would be a front and center consideration in the media, complete with talk about how the onus was on the authority to do everything in their power to look unbiased. But this is White-guy Trump and the authority is Mexican, so the very suggestion at the possibility of bias - despite full blown La Raza membership - is supposed to be something no good man entertains. Even Newt Gingrich got in on the act of saying this was all terrible and Trump should stop that this instant.

Which, once again, makes Trump's decision to stick to his guns that much more laudable. If the media can question the bias of a white cop with a black criminal, or a white judge with an anything-but-white defendant, then scenarios where the roles are reversed are fair game for questioning as well.

Trump's dumping on that idea, and in the process, making it a whole lot easier for everyone else to do the same. In the process, he's making Republicans tear their hair out, all of whom have comfortably acclimated to being on the 'noble losers who no one thinks is noble' side for so long. I call that a double win.

16 comments:

rOnIn said...

Perhaps you are right. However, I would argue he and his campaign need to exploit exactly what you wrote which was the following:

"If the media can question the bias of a white cop with a black criminal, or a white judge with an anything-but-white defendant, then scenarios where the roles are reversed are fair game for questioning as well."

I really have not seen his campaign or him outline that argument. Also, I happen to agree with this:

"This La Raza judge stuff is a pointless tangent. Yes, the judge belongs to several racist groups. A latina United States Supreme Court Justice even said, the sex and race of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging”."

"But in modern American race politics, most people don’t see it that way. This issue is alienating people he will need to win a ground game."

"Combining nationalism with innate male desire to protect women. San Jose was a gift from God. That needs to be focus of President Trump."


http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/06/06/one-improvement-trump-needs-to-make/

While it's great he is dumping ideas for society to examine itself, he should come to understand what it will take for him to win. I happen to think Cernovich is dead on.

Crude said...

I'm not persuaded by the bare claim of 'Most people in America don't see it that way'. They may not. But they should see it another way, and one reason they don't see it another way is because no one ever talks about the hypocrisy.

I agree with Cernovich as far as he goes. He's right: Trump should make it easy, not hard, for people to support him. His focus right now, politically, is a risk to say the least. But I don't see Trump's victory or defeat as the only important factor here. As I keep saying, I value the effects on the culture that Trump is having right now. Tell me Trump is guaranteed to lose in November, and while I'll regard that as unfortunate, it won't for a second make me second-guess my initial desire to support him. The impact he's made is too undeniable, and too positive.

On this topic, I'm with Trump. I like his response. I think he's doing something important by refusing to apologize and by doubling down on the comment. I'd also be fine with him pivoting to the focus Cernovich is talking about, because I would still like him to win. Thankfully, he can both double down and still pivot. Disaster would be him apologizing and praising the judge, which is what any other Republican would have done.

rOnIn said...

You wrote:

But they should see it another way, and one reason they don't see it another way is because no one ever talks about the hypocrisy.

Okay, but I don't see Trump laying the hypocrisy out. To the point, if he keeps saying the judge is just biased against him and not singling out the hypocrisy--some if not most won't see it another way.

You wrote:

But I don't see Trump's victory or defeat as the only important factor here. As I keep saying, I value the effects on the culture that Trump is having right now.

If you are looking short term perhaps, but he should aim to win because he would have an even higher platform. Point blank, it seems short sighted to just think of just now, IMO.

You wrote:

I think he's doing something important by refusing to apologize and by doubling down on the comment.

He does not need to apologize, but he does need to move from the judge is just biased against me and approach the angle of how it impacts the masses (i.e. the one about the white cop and black criminal). You see, that sort of angle moves the topic from just him and makes it about we the people.

You wrote:

Thankfully, he can both double down and still pivot.

He should double down, but again he needs to stop making it just about him, and yes he should also pivot because that would be gold for him.

Crude said...

Okay, but I don't see Trump laying the hypocrisy out. To the point, if he keeps saying the judge is just biased against him and not singling out the hypocrisy--some if not most won't see it another way.

I don't see any difference between the two. Trump saying he suspects bias on the part of this judge IS addressing the hypocrisy. I think what you mean here, perhaps, is 'He's not making the intellectual case for why this judge is biased.'

But I don't think that's necessary. I think it's common sense as to why someone could at least suspect bias here. Everyone already knows. In fact, everyone already agrees it's at least possible. What's lacking is anyone with the willingness to actually say it, because the people who also know but who nevertheless have a vested interest in denying it, will scream 'racist'.

If you are looking short term perhaps, but he should aim to win because he would have an even higher platform. Point blank, it seems short sighted to just think of just now, IMO.

Oddly enough, I disagree, and I think this kind of thinking carries a huge risk. I believe the world is filled with people who believe they are craftily biding their time, and in reality are just surrendering. This gets touchy - there is such a thing as a stupid move. I can easily see the argument being made that Trump should be looking for an opportunity to move on to another topic. But I no longer give as much credence to 'What's important is to think in the long-term, not the short term. Don't fight here, save it for later.' Sometimes that makes sense, but more often than not it makes people gunshy and second-guessing themselves.

The GOP has been a very long march of 'We're being crafty, we're being smart. We'll give up here, but we're just saving ourselves for the REAL battle.' Surprise - the REAL battle never arrives. It's hypothetical. And it sets up excuses for weak-willed people.

An unwillingness to take a risk right now, immediately - in the short term - is fatal.

He does not need to apologize, but he does need to move from the judge is just biased against me and approach the angle of how it impacts the masses

And here I just disagree. Trump is not the man for making the intellectual case about why tolerance of La Raza, etc, is bad. The man acts, he points out the obvious. He can, and should, leave the intellectual case to others. Bloggers and columnists handle this. He clears the way.

If he clears it and no one else makes the case, no one else steps up and writes the articles and fights, well, that's on others.

rOnIn said...

You wrote:
I don't see any difference between the two. Trump saying he suspects bias on the part of this judge IS addressing the hypocrisy. I think what you mean here, perhaps, is 'He's not making the intellectual case for why this judge is biased.'

An intellectual case for his claim isn’t bad, but that's not necessarily my point. He has a case against him surely one can see him saying the judge is biased. The difference is he has a vested or internal interest in saying, “Well the judge is biased.”

You wrote:
But I don't think that's necessary. I think it's common sense as to why someone could at least suspect bias here. Everyone already knows. In fact, everyone already agrees it's at least possible. What's lacking is anyone with the willingness to actually say it, because the people who also know but who nevertheless have a vested interest in denying it, will scream 'racist'.

It’s also common sense to assume that Trump would say the judge is biased, because he wants to poison the well as a self-interest.

You wrote:
I can easily see the argument being made that Trump should be looking for an opportunity to move on to another topic.

Again, I don’t think he needs to move away from the hypocrisy criticism, but to make it just about his case is not to his ultimate advantage.

You wrote:
But I no longer give as much credence to 'What's important is to think in the long-term, not the short term. Don't fight here, save it for later.' Sometimes that makes sense, but more often than not it makes people gunshy and second-guessing themselves. The GOP has been a very long march of 'We're being crafty, we're being smart. We'll give up here, but we're just saving ourselves for the REAL battle.' Surprise - the REAL battle never arrives. It's hypothetical. And it sets up excuses for weak-willed people. An unwillingness to take a risk right now, immediately - in the short term - is fatal.

I am not asking he give up, but I am suggesting he think about how he communicates his message. In other words, I'm not implying he should become a “Cuck” but to use strategy to “Make American Great Again” in the long run.

You wrote:
And here I just disagree. Trump is not the man for making the intellectual case about why tolerance of La Raza, etc, is bad. The man acts, he points out the obvious. He can, and should, leave the intellectual case to others. Bloggers and columnists handle this. He clears the way. If he clears it and no one else makes the case, no one else steps up and writes the articles and fights, well, that's on others.

By making the hypocrisy issue only about himself he misses the mark. I mean, the illegal immigration issue became a huge talking point not because he went on an intellectual discourse, but because it is a matter which affects people. I suppose he can leave it to bloggers and columnists to engage, but it was not bloggers and columnists which created the whole illegal immigration a talking point; rather, it was Trump and his command of the media.

Crude said...

It’s also common sense to assume that Trump would say the judge is biased, because he wants to poison the well as a self-interest.

Yep, but the people opposing him aren't offering up evidence of the judge's lack of bias. That's the point. For them, it's not even possible that the judge is biased. There's no reason to think it at all, certainly not because of the immigration status. And that, frankly, is absurd.

but it was not bloggers and columnists which created the whole illegal immigration a talking point; rather, it was Trump and his command of the media.

I disagree. Trump only made it a talking point because he stated the obvious and refused to back down. THAT was what turned heads. A politician being savaged by all sides on this topic and then -not- giving in was a novelty. It turns out, it's one people have a healthy appetite for.

I think Trump's entire string of successes largely comes down to his being willing to state an obvious truth or possible truth that others could not bring themselves to even entertain. From W being a failure of a president to illegal immigrants not all being the best people to muslims being uniquely predisposed to terror. These weren't things he needed to make the case for. The case was made, it's just that no one was willing to say it.

Mr. Green said...

So what tangible results would you point to (apart from Republicans' tearing their hair out, though I admit that's a pretty satisfying one)? I take it "everyone else" refers to people in general, not just other politicians, pundits, etc. Do you see effects beyond their being more willing to be upfront about their positions where maybe they wouldn't have before?

Crude said...

Do you see effects beyond their being more willing to be upfront about their positions where maybe they wouldn't have before?

Let's see...

* Illegal immigration has become a front and center issue, despite an absurdly intense and negative response from the entirety of the mainstream media, the entirety of one of two major political parties, and a substantial number of the second major political party.

* George W Bush, and the Bush family at large, has gone from the unspoken heads/heroes of the GOP to pariahs. Jeb did not just lose - he was humiliated. In fact, every GOPe candidate was humiliated. So much so that, in their misery, they had to turn to Ted Cruz, who I truly believe most of them sincerely detest. And still they lost.

* Free trade, and globalism itself, is being criticized in the GOP like it hasn't been in decades. Opposition to free trade (or at least unilateral free trade) by the GOP's own presidential candidate? It is a political miracle.

* Condemnations of racism and sexism are being stood up and faced down - with actual results. It's one thing to have an act of valor. We have, if only for the moment, demonstrations of valor paired with success.

* That success is not just tasted by Trump. You have supporters of his, like Milo, like Vox, like Cernovich and more, who have thrown in with this candidacy and experienced payoff. It's one thing to be invested in an outsider candidate. It's another thing when that same candidate wins. It boosts morale, and it encourages creativity and commitment. People start to realize, victories are possible with this angle.

* Racial dialogue - the shakedown game - has been upended. There is a beachhead established that makes whites think that if everyone is going to be tribal, they have every right to be tribal as well. If anyone ever wanted racial tribalism to be discouraged, this is the only way to do it. If this continues in any meaningful way, it may spell the end for racial grievance theatre.

* Deception and betrayal has been exposed. We've seen what puppets the March for Life really are at this point. We're starting to see what the pro-life movement has really become, and just how many 'religious leaders' really are just glorified vote bundlers. This was hard to see before, and easy to excuse. It's not so easy now.

Now, someone can concern troll over this. But people can concern troll over everything. The fact is, Trump can lose and these gains can persist. In my view, some of them likely will persist. I keep saying that I would give up 20 years of presidencies to change the culture. Trump's candidacy is doing that. Seeing the results thus far, I stand by my statement.

rOnIn said...

You wrote:
Yep, but the people opposing him aren't offering up evidence of the judge's lack of bias. That's the point. For them, it's not even possible that the judge is biased. There's no reason to think it at all, certainly not because of the immigration status. And that, frankly, is absurd.

Right, but he is not pointing that out. All he is saying is, “The judge is biased against me.” Further, in his speech yesterday he totally pivoted.

You wrote:
I disagree. Trump only made it a talking point because he stated the obvious and refused to back down. THAT was what turned heads. A politician being savaged by all sides on this topic and then -not- giving in was a novelty. It turns out, it's one people have a healthy appetite for.

I don’t discount the fact he refused to back down, but as you point out in your last paragraph of your last reply to me people embraced him because he states the obvious. The illegal immigration issue had been bubbling up for years, and he had the testicle fortitude to make it one of the banners of his campaign. Again, with his command for the media this issue about hypocrisy can end quickly should he stop making it solely about his damn Trump U case.

You wrote:
I think Trump's entire string of successes largely comes down to his being willing to state an obvious truth or possible truth that others could not bring themselves to even entertain. From W being a failure of a president to illegal immigrants not all being the best people to muslims being uniquely predisposed to terror. These weren't things he needed to make the case for. The case was made, it's just that no one was willing to say it.

Here I completely agree.

Crude said...

Further, in his speech yesterday he totally pivoted.

I don't think so. He did the 'clarification' thing, but he retracted nothing, he stood by his remarks, and more. My only complaint about his statement was that he said nothing about La Raza, but he didn't even walk back his view that the judge is biased.

As for Trump U, well - that actually is central here, certainly in his view. I can't really hold 'self-defense over a business' against him. This guy is a shameless self-promoter.

Frankly, it looks like between his statement, his successes last night, and the whole Hillary/Bernie thing, the media's about to move on anyway. I am predisposed to give Trump plenty of leeway here, given what he's accomplished, against odds, prediction, and advice. Not to mention, really - Trump is so far singular. If alternatives to him come, it will be in part because he cleared the way for them.

Mr. Green said...

Crude — OK, fair enough. I'm more inclined to count those as words rather than deeds, but of course the two go together anyway. I think people frequently miss your point about presidents vs. culture; that is, the only reason even to care about the presidency is insofar as it will affect the culture... but people get so wrapped up in the politics that they start throwing the cultural baby out with the political bathwater.

Crude said...

Crude — OK, fair enough. I'm more inclined to count those as words rather than deeds, but of course the two go together anyway.

All Aquinas and Aristotle did was spill ink. If those are just words, then deeds are the less important of the two.

Mr. Green said...

Well, St. Thomas is an officially canonised saint, so he must have done something. But if nobody had acted on the words of Aquinas or Aristotle (or already been in a culture that acted on them), then the same thing would apply. Spilled ink is vital to understanding, and as a naturally theoretically-academically-philosophically-inclined chap, that's of far more interest to me as an individual. But if we come back a decade from now and the culture is still the same (or most likely worse), I won't find some positive words along the way to be much of a consolation.

Crude said...

Well, St. Thomas is an officially canonised saint, so he must have done something.

A whole lot of talking. Plus some miracles, but I'm pretty sure those were post-mortem.

But if nobody had acted on the words of Aquinas or Aristotle (or already been in a culture that acted on them), then the same thing would apply.

People are already acting. They're voting, they're raising their voices, they're finally speaking up, and speaking more openly and freely at that. I believe Trump's vote totals just went historical.

I mean, I guess you can say that this situation is just another case of Trump supporters simply being all talk (all he did was talk!), and that this doesn't count because Trump was on his way to a speech.

Mr. Green said...

People are already acting. They're voting, they're raising their voices, they're finally speaking up, and speaking more openly and freely at that. I believe Trump's vote totals just went historical.

I'm tempted to argue that voting is just a form of speech, but that's not really what I want to get at. Perhaps I can put it this way: my criterion for success is for society to start becoming more traditional/Christian/conservative instead of less. Yes, we're winning some battles, but we're a long way from winning the war, or even being likely to. (But shouldn't we fight those battles anyway, even if we're doomed? Hm, I'll have to think about that.)

Crude said...

Wars don't end. Not wars like this, not on this level.

Lately, I see progress where previously there was none. Good enough for me.