So is the entire claim of bigotry from FranchiseBailer. I'm not a legal expert able to determine the rulings are unfair (nor is it relevant) but I think it is obvious Trump is just claiming the judge is biased, not being a bigot himself.
Is a Mexican American judge presiding the same as an all-white jury? Would the real question be... should an African American ask for African American judge?
I agree in this specific case, he isn't being racist. He's just looking out for his self-interest which is fine. However it does put him in a catch 22 position that I posted earlier where if he always claims that the Latinos love him, then why is he afraid of a Latino judge and why is he using his Mexican heritage as a reason for bias?
My belief is that Republicans (or Conservatives, if you don't like the term Republican) now say they won't vote for him, but come November, will vote for him. I suspect the same thing happened in the past ("McCain isn't a conservative", "Romney isn't a conservative"), but probably to a lesser degree. I suspect that the vote counts will be pretty similar to past election... perhaps a few more crossovers for Trump, but if all the Republicans that now say they won't vote for him do in fact not vote for him, Trump would not have any chance at all. We'll see...
I've given it a lot of thought and early on my knee jerk reaction was to vote against Trump at all levels meaning a straight ticket Democrat vote. After time has passed I considered softening that to where I would vote Libertarian (my actual party) but I just wasn't able to convince myself that was the right thing to do. If the Republican party truly is the party of Trump, it's a party I want to see fail at all levels. The only way I could even consider voting for a Republican in this election at any level of government is if they speak out against Trump and they do it early and often. Romney and McCain were bad choices to run for president as centrist Republicans.....but they are both infinitely better candidates than Trump. I've said many times that Hillary is guilty of mishandling classified information and should be convicted of those crimes.....but even she's an infinitely superior choice than Trump. Electing Trump really would be like electing an American equivalent of Kim Jong-Un and I want nothing to do with that or anyone that would support that.
I think this non existent irrelevant tangent should probably follow his legal advice. Speaking of tangents I don't think any of the candidates are bigots and I think the crap BLM protesters have done to Clinton, and examination of her language from 20 years ago is very unfair. The only people these candidates are bigoted against are the ones who aren't for them being president.
It's great to see so many people are turning away from liberalism because they don't want to be associated with these violent thugs and politicians who just give them excuses.
Violent thugs trying to intimidate people are expected from the regressive. The problem is the San Jose mayor and the police that stood by doing nothing and allowed the thugs to beat people. The orders given to the officers are really pathetic. He said officers did not stop some acts of violence because arresting the perpetrators might cause more violence as protesters turned on police.
There is a huge difference. We don't have professional juries in this country, and the lawyers always say that on a jury they want the different jurors to bring their own personal experiences to the jury and to use those in their deliberations. Trump is saying the judge is biased, which is saying that he isn't capable of doing his job. The reason that Trump gives for the judge not being able to do his job and being biased, is because of the Judge's heritage. To claim that a person's heritage makes them unable to do their job is a case of being bigoted against people of that heritage. Again, I wouldn't have a problem if Trump had complained about the judge because he cheated his way through law school, or worked for an advocacy group that targeted for profit "universities" or something like that. The complaint against this judge is that he happens to have Mexican heritage. That is not a complaint against this judge, but every judge with Mexican heritage. You and texxx can pretend that that part of the complaint doesn't exist or is somehow negated, but it doesn't make it so.
No actually he is being a bigot for the reasons I stated above. It would be different if Trump accused the judge of being biased because his wife was the head of a group that devoted their efforts to ridding the world of for profit universities, but that isn't the reason that Trump gave for this judge's bias. The reason trump gave for this judge's bias was that he has Mexican heritage. That makes the complaint not against this judge, but against every single judge with Mexican heritage. To claim a person can't do their job because they have Mexican heritage, is by definition bigoted.
Kudos headed your way, Mr. Scarface! I wish someone could embed this video of Trump displaying "equal opportunity" racism for the world to see. Trump is not only treating that Federal judge like dirt under his shoes - you know, the distinguished gentleman that was born in Indiana that he's constantly making racist remarks about. He's also making bizarre remarks about African Americans. The video in your link illustrates it perfectly. Everyone should watch it. To call Trump's remarks strange just doesn't seem to be adequate. That he is actually going to be the Republican candidate for President in November is a national scandal. We effectively have two major political parties. Everyone knows that, unless they've lived under a rock all their lives. It's been that way for close on to one hundred years now, and is likely to remain so, flaws and all. Well, the GOP has broken new ground. With the imminent nomination of Donald Trump, the party has descended to such depths that I seriously wonder if they can survive as a viable force in American politics. It wouldn't surprise me if the Republican Party fractures, breaks apart, turning into 2 or 3 smaller parties fighting each other as much as their are fighting the opposition.
Juxtapose Trump's reaction to this situation with him reacting to a crisis of any magnitude. lolrific. This is the banner-bearer of the GOP, and it's hilarious to see people contort to defend him, or to defend him by "not supporting him". I'd like to see him elected just for the LOLs. Not sure what would be more damaging to regressive social and political ideas in America: 4 years of Trump. Or 8 years of Hillary.
This is the kind of comment that drives me round the bend. As if there is a real choice for any sane person.
People blow up presidents as apocalyptic power-brokers. President Obama "enslaved" a generation of Conservatives by implementing a health insurance program. Trump is a "racist bigot" who will be "Hitler". The reality is somewhere in the middle. A President Trump constrained by Congress is a befuddled fool who makes confused Supreme Court picks (admittedly important, but other justices will retire very soon or will have to pick their spots) and tries to cheerlead for irrational policy. The military will refuse to observe some of his orders, and he will have little support from the established political class. George W Bush was an unmitigated disaster for America. His backlash was a President who abused government powers at times, and at others, unleashed the highest aspiration of a progressive generation, and was the strongest voice for science and technology yet. And yet, even President Obama couldn't get through more than a half of what needs to be done, and this with a Democrat super-majority in Congress (at least initially)! American politics works in cycles, and counter-cycles. Elections and backlash. Clinton to Bush Jr., Carter to Reagan/Bush Sr., Bush Jr. to Obama. Obama to whoever. 4 years of Trump in an economic downturn that will come from monetary tightening (plus whatever saber-rattling he brings up for trade wars) and the country would produce another backlash. Somebody will own these tough years ahead--why not a fool? Perhaps after this, progressives can focus on what needs to be done with their strongest mandate yet: a system of carbon taxes, national single-payer , declawing the law-accounting-financial quandary that poses for a large portion of the economy, a full shift to the new digital economy, a strong safety net to mitigate structural changes in employment, advancing America and the world forward with bold, ambitious 21st century STEM-oriented projects like the Human Genome Project, or the BRAIN Initiative, undoing the excesses of civil liberties violations committed in the War on Terror (and prosecuting those responsible), open borders, the elimination of de jure discrimination for protected classes--all this and more, ensuring America is "made great again." America is okay now, but when it was founded by secular deists ahead of their time--it was leading light of progressivism, of secularism, or an expression of values that led the world. It'd be great to see that again in my lifetime. I don't care who does it--I just care about the probability of it happening. I am slightly inclined to the probability of Hillary working on that agenda as opposed to whoever follows Trump, but it's not a very significant difference. Kick in the fact that Hillary has a 65% chance of winning in my mind, and I actually find this cycle livable. If there's one thing Americans have shown in this election cycle, it is their inclination for bold, visionary stances rather than the staid moderate path. Experiment with one side of that with a failed banner-holder. Look at how uncomfortable the GOP is with Trump as candidate--now imagine what it will look like with Trump as president. A generation of failed policies will finally receive their due. Anyways, I can live with Trump as President, and I can live with Hillary as President: the world won't fall apart with either (or not much more than it was bound to do in any case), and I'd think long rather than short with Trump around. I get that we probably disagree on this, and you can call me whatever you want for my reasoning--but I will not apologize for it.
Reagan was a **** president who crafted a story future generations still believe. Despite what I posted in the other T v H thread, gambling on politics is generally dumb. You eventually forget about the gamble and either double down or totally disown after a series of repeated embarrassments.
Hilarious reading these "non-Trump" posters pretending they "won't be voting for Trump" who are apparently too ashamed to admit they will be voting for him. TELLING
Which may be fair, as I haven't perhaps gambled enough to see the effects, but damn it, I'm the type of dude who goes all in on A-10 off-suit. In any case, you'll all be glad I won't be able to make that choice...yet. To be clear, I'd vote for Hillary, but neither do I think the sky will rain fire if Trump gets elected. It might even be balmy for progressives thinking of the long-term game! And I think Twitter and the daily press will be just that degree more of funnier.
Would make for better discussion if you spelled out some names. All you guys do is talk about Tex. I know he torments you but you said "posters" implying more than one.
You made an effort, but you are so wrong and on so many levels. Read Rebecca Traister's article about Hillary Clinton in New York Magazine. An in depth look at the woman that you will find enlightening, in my humble opinion. And your comment about Federal judges? How could you be that wrong? A lifetime appointment can mean 20 or 30 years on the Federal bench, including the Supreme Court, and the next President could very well be looking at filling as many as 3 seats of that august body. Somehow, that doesn't matter? Do a search on Google for "Did Hillary's Campaign Have to be this Hard?" Again, it's by Ms. Traister in New York Magazine. nymag.com
