I sincerely doubt it. Letting blatant racism go unchallenged simply normalizes racism. That's far more damaging.
Racism sadly is normal.
I sincerely don't know how there could be any confusion unless someone took literally no time to look into it. He's part of a professional organization, that's it.
Because they have the same name, and one is about politics.
That's simply not how communication works in English. Not only is the judge not part of that organization, but unless his ethnic heritage is relevant there would be no reason to mention it. For example had the judge been white do you think Trump would have said 'he is Caucasian and part of an association I don't like"? Of course not.
All the other times he has mentioned the Judge being Mexican, it has been in the context of, "He is Mexican, and that is fine". In that case, its an attempt at a signal to show he is not racist. The irony is that many take that as a sign of racism and it backfires. The whole, I have a black friend idea.
Once more, here is the passage from the WSJ:
The grammatical way to parse that sentence is that both of those factors represent conflicts of interest.
Yes, that is the way the writer is showing it. The problem is that you accept his understanding without the full quote.
If I were to say "I heard someone say 'I hate Mexicans', and that is horrible, and I feel strongly about that". Someone could quote it as I said I hate Mexicans...and I feel strongly about that.
In my example, there would likely need to be intent to misquote like that, but not always is it intended. I have seen other times in the past where people say, why bring up race at all? The implication is bringing up race is inherently racist. Until we have the full quote, its not shown to be racist yet.
Unless the WSJ is deliberately misrepresenting their own interview, yes it does. Their article is crystal clear.
That article is not the article of the interview fyi. That article is commenting on part of the interview. I dont know if you have paid access, but I do, and they dont link to the actual interview or the full quote.
Actually that wouldn't be a conflict either as the case isn't about the wall. The Democratic Party is strongly against Trump's wall but that wouldn't mean that any judge that was part of the Democratic Party has a conflict of interest. This is simply not how the law works.
That is a conflict. Its understood that all Judges have personal opinions, but they are supposed to be professional enough to put those aside. I would say that if Trump tried to get a new judge for just that, he would lose because of the assumption I mentioned above. Judges cannot be expected not to have opinions on things personally.
If a KKK leader was on a jury of a black defendant, would you see that as a conflict of interest. I go that far only to illustrate a point. I dont think the D's are like the KKK other than they are a group.
Of course any campaign could do anything at any time. That doesn't stop us from making rational inferences. If they aren't disputing the WSJ coming straight out and saying Trump said there was a conflict because of his Mexican heritage it is reasonable to assume they don't think that description is wrong.
Trump is defending himself against what Hillary said recently. That is a bigger issue to him, because the racist shit will actually help him. Or, it could be that he does not want to go into it because he did actually say something racist. Either way, it just happened yesterday.
So how long do we have to wait for the Trump campaign to dispute this description of the interview before you think they don't want to dispute it? Just give me a time. It's not like the article tries to beat around the bush, they just come straight out and say it. In fact you're the only person I've seen that seems to think the WSJ ISN'T saying that Trump viewed him as biased due to his Mexican heritage.
His response does not prove or disprove anything. Having access to the interview will. As I explained before, there are many reasons hey may not want to respond.
By the way there's no need to pay for WSJ access, just use either google or chrome incognito mode.
Meh, it was a buck. Im going to look around for a few days and see what they have. I actually feel guilty using methods to get around ad revenue. I feel like its sealing.
