Chuck Grassley Compares Trump’s Racism To Sonia Sotomayor Celebrating Diversity

[oberliner]

WASHINGTON — Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on Wednesday downplayed Donald Trump‘s attack on a federal judge’s Mexican heritage — something that’s thrown the GOP into chaos all week — and said it’s basically the same thing as Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor referring to herself as “a wise Latina.”

“I think that you don’t have any more trouble with what Trump said than when Sotomayor said that — when she was found saying in speeches that, quote, ‘A wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male,’” Grassley said in a conference call with Iowa reporters.

“I don’t hear any criticism of that sort of comment by a justice of the Supreme Court,” he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chuck-grassley-trump-sotomayor_us_57586354e4b0e39a28ac402a

[Ilsa]

1. I see apples and oranges.

There's what Justice S said about herself, and DT whining about a judge he thinks won't agree with him because he's been insulting his culture for the last year.

[Warren DeMontague]

2. Yeah, but people take him seriously when he works with DiFi to save us from teh marijuanas

or at least some here do.



http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-04-05/oldest-us-senators-accused-of-holding-biased-marijuana-hearing

[pampango]

3. The right-wing populist message is that diversity and multiculturalism are 'politically correct'.

So Grassley is onboard with the latest Trump-led 'politically correct' is bad. A white male 'who says things that white males have always wanted to say' is now the considered cool in conservative circles.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Fallacy of False Equivalence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1]

Characteristics

A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: "If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal". d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be able to be used.

The following statements are examples of false equivalence:

"They're both soft, cuddly pets. There's no difference between a cat and a dog."
"We all bleed red. We're all no different from each other."

False equivalence is occasionally claimed in politics, where one political party will accuse their opponents of having performed equally wrong actions.[2] Commentators may also accuse journalists of false equivalence in their reporting of political controversies if the stories are perceived to assign equal blame to multiple parties.[3]

[Initech]

5. Chuck Grassley: People who somehow got elected.

[spanone]

6. nice try chuckie....p.s. you're racist ass is showing.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. False equivalency

and stupid (and old news) to boot.