Hacker News Reader

Comment by mej10 | Hacker News Reader

Trump: Jake, if he was giving me fair rulings, I wouldn't be talking to you this way. He's given me horrible rulings.

Tapper: But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is, if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job ...

Trump: I think that's why he's doing it.

View on HN

Race can be a motivator, you know that right? Human beings are not machines with 0 bias just because they are in a position where they are supposed to have 0 bias.

Yes, it can be. And if it is a major factor in this case, then there are methods of legal recourse.

But instead he says that the judge treated him unfairly due to his race. Literally racist.

If you would look at everything he said then you would know how he meant it. He mentioned LaRaza, he mentioned previous rulings from this judge and much more. Instead you pick one quote out and call it a day.

I have read everything he has said about this, and I know what he wants us to hear.

Honest questions:

Do you think it is possible that Trump is just mad that he lost and is just trying to discredit the judge?

Do you think Trump is the kind of person that would do something like that?

Does that mean that it is "literally racist" for a non-white person to claim a white police officer, judge, etc. treated them unfairly because of their race?

Whenever there is no evidence to support their claim and they haven't taken steps to prove otherwise, yes.

There is evidence to support the claim. The judge released information that he wasn't supposed to (judge reversed the release later), and he set the first court day on the day of the GOP convention. There's a few other things too.

How is that no evidence? That is evidence to support the claim. Is it proof? Is it enough to condemn the judge? I don't know, but it is false to say that Trump came out of nowhere with this and has no evidence.

But see, the way this is supposed to work is, you tell the court about it. If that doesn't work, you tell the appeals court about it. You don't throw claims like this around in the national media (at least, normal litigants don't).

This passage supports OP claim that Trump only reacting to "horrible rulings".

But that's clearly false: "“I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest"

Those quotes prove my point. Trump did not say he can't do his job because of his heritage. He said he isn't doing his job, and that he thinks it's because of his heritage.

And there's nothing racist about that conclusion. People do act based on their identity and heritage, and there's nothing wrong with that. If it affects their rulings as a judge, then that's problem, and all Trump has said is that he's not getting fair rulings (subjective, but that is his POV), and that there's an obvious potential conflict of interest.

Look, I get that Trump is saying "Unfair rulings, caused by being Mexican." But this is no different from "He is Mexican, which causes unfair rulings." It's logically equivalent.

If you said "She is dumb because she's a girl," you would be (rightfully) pilloried for being sexist. No reasonable person is going to interpret that statement like you are interpreting Trump's comments.

Black people keep complaining all the time how whites are biased against the blacks. Are they (blacks) racist for pointing out something that might actually be true?!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com