I see people are becoming upset because the logical fallacy of extending Mexican (a nationality) to mean Latino (a race) is being called out. I also see people are uncomfortable with the fact that Hillary Clinton went on the television show The View and NOT call them out for their blatant, direct racism toward all Latinos and Rosie Perez. If it stinks this bad for you, please don't hold your breath until the election in order to avoid smelling it. You might pass out. We just saw our president feel a greater obligation to a foreign power than he did to his own professional duty (AND country). We've also heard members of congress chide other elected officials over the TPP: calling them corporate and foreign mouthpieces who have undermined their duty to their constituents and country. Even within the scope of current events this isn't even the first instance of such an accusation. It's only acceptable for Trump, I suppose. After all, it was his case.
Could black people in a court case then say a white judge is incapable of delivering a fair and impartial judgment and be justified then? Or does it only apply to Trump in this one case? If it just applies to Trump why just him and not everyone?
I'm a republican and after digesting both of these clowns here are my thoughts. 1 - 10 scale. With 1 being the worst and 10 being the best. If Hillary wins she will end up between a 4 and 6 for her term. If Trump wins, ha. He could be anywhere between a 2 through a 9.
What are the circumstances of this hypothetical court case? By the way, it is perfectly legal to file a petition to remove a judge or for a judge to remove themselves from a case. However, that is not what happened in Trump's case.
A tax statement isn't going to vet anything. Politics are chalked full of conflicts of interests. Again, a career politician does not get to the top by being an complete honest politician. If you deny this, you are being completely naive. I am not sure why you are only concerned about Trump being shady. If you were really this concerned about this issue instead of blindly following the media (like Clintons Benghazi), you would opt to have every candidate have a full scope background investigation ran on them. Honestly, I am not opposed to this idea. There are many many many things to not like about Trump. His tax records are the least of them. The more the media focuses on this non issue, the more they pass up on real issues (again, like always).
Complete agree. That is the problem with this election. With Hillary, you know exactly what you're going to get...and its not what this country needs. With Trump, you could get another Reagan or someone worse than Johnson. If Hillary wins, lets hope the RNC can put forth a legitimate candidate for once.
It has been ruled that ethnicity is not suitable grounds to file for any kind of conflict of interest or having a judge removed from the case. Why are you defending Trump on this? Paul Ryan, Republican, and Trump supporter has called the comment the very definition of racism. Other Republicans have also come out and admitted that it was racist. Claiming a person can't do their job because of their ethnicity is absolutely prejudice and bigotry. It doesn't matter if it's a case. The fact that you and Trump have said that the Judge might be prejudiced against him because of their Mexican heritage is a tacit admission that Trump is against Mexicans. If he wasn't against Mexicans why would someone from Mexican heritage have any pre-existing problem with Donald Trump.
I don't see why Mexicans hate trump other than the crooked DNC and the CNN God bless Fox News and Roger Ailes.
You are factually wrong here. Trump reference both "Mexican heritage" and being a member of a "Latino lawyers' association". He covered all ground. Nationality, ethnicity, and race. Of course he didn't understand what was the Latino lawyer's association, which mean that "Latino" was all he needed to hear.
Definition of race 1: a breeding stock of animals 2a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stockb : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics 3a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a groupb : breedc : a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits Looks like race can mean pretty much what ever you want it to. Which is what makes it so freakin stupid that we divide ourselves up by "race". By that definition, Nerd is a race.
Yes, I advise you to file such a motion the next time you are in federal court. Of course, the most likely scenario for this would be you wearing and orange jumpsuit and being pro se, so you'd likely be facing bigger issues.
hillary is the epitome of the status quo. the status quo is not working, but its better than trump. the only thing she has going for her is that she is less of a piece of s*** than her opponent. do you think reagan was a good president? he trashed our economy with reckless spending policies and trickle down economic theories (that trump is now championing), tripled the national debt, raised taxes on non-rich people, oversaw massive unemployment, gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, illegally sold weapons to iran and used that money to fund terrorism in latin america, supported saddam and gave him chemical weapons, pulled marines out of beriut after a bomb killed 240 of them, supported apartheid in south africa just to name a few. reagan was a monster and if he was running today there is no way he would have even gotten the nomination. many of the things he did totally go against what trump is proposing so why would anyone who supports trump think reagan is a standard to hold him up to? it makes no sense.
I agree Clinton deserves a more worthy opponent. I agree that she has some sexism to overcome to be president. I really disagree, however, with the intimation that the only reason Trump hasn't been blown out of the water yet is because he is a man. There were a dozen men in the Republican primary who deserved a more worthy opponent, and they all lost. If it was Bernie or Biden or whomever up there competing instead of Clinton, Trump would still be pulling ~40% of the vote. Sexism is an issue, but there are other identity issues at play (and interplay) here. I agree on Clinton. On Trump, I'd say it's more 1 through 4. Trump did not make any such petition in court. A petition based on the protected classes -- race, sex, gender, national origin, etc -- would not be entertained by the courts. His lawyers knew it was a nonstarter so Trump instead put that argument to the yokels who don't know crap about the judicial system to pretend like he's getting railroaded so they can discount the unscrupulous business practices he engaged in to see the inside of the court room in the first place. I'm not only concerned about Trump's shadiness. As I've said elsewhere, I won't be voting for Clinton either because of her history of obfuscation. However, though I disapprove of her on shadiness grounds, Trump is in another stratosphere of shadiness. Clinton at least has released her taxes. She's released extensive medical records. She has reluctantly complied with the demands to share her emails. Even the Clinton Foundation is rated as highly transparent. Despite all her attempts to hide things she might worry could be used against her by political enemies, we have mountains and mountains of material about her. And despite all the material, no real smoking guns. Trump has not been forthcoming at all. He won't release taxes or medical records. We haven't had the benefit of getting emails or records though FOIA about what he's been doing in his professional life like we get for Clinton. He doesn't have a Senate voting record like Clinton. And yet what glimpses we do get from investigative reporters digging into potential trouble spots that might reflect on his character -- they paint a very ugly picture. Shadiness all over. I can't imagine how bad it'd look if we saw as much about Trump's work as we've seen about Clinton's. I agree with you that tax records are probably the least of things to worry about with Trump. Frankly, they should be unnecessary at this point for the entire populace to realize he's unfit. Since they haven't, I have little hope that tax transparency would change anything. I was just objecting to the idea that it is somehow inappropriate to ask to see his taxes now but would become appropriate later if he became president. That's foolish. But, I'm not here to crucify him for not releasing his taxes. He has a right to choose not to, whatever the common practice has been. He's making a calculation that not releasing them helps him more than releasing them does. Just like Clinton made the opposite calculation. That's fine. I'm also fine with people refusing to vote for him because he won't release them (if there are any such people). It seems like such a minor trifle, given everything, but it makes sense to hold candidates accountable for their choices. I could refuse to vote for him on such grounds, but there were already so many other things that already disqualified him. Given the definitions you posted, it doesn't look like race can mean whatever you want it to. It looks like a chain of genomic relationship is required to use the term. Nerd could not be a race because nerds are not defined by having a blood relationship to one another. I don't think that's it at all. I'm not any happier about prejudice based on ancestry or national origin than I am about prejudice based on race or the color of one's skin. Maybe you could make a defensible argument on citizenship if the judge was a Mexican citizen instead of a US citizen. But, he's not. You can say it's not 'technically racism' because Trump is discriminating based on the judge's cultural heritage and not his genomic heritage. But that doesn't make it any better.
And here begins the distortion of the facts and the walk away from the topic. I am not saying I agree with Trump's actions. All I have said is that Mexican does not equal Latino - which apparently some people still cannot comprehend.
Race was a made up statistic by white men to account for the number of black slaves they had back in the 18th century. http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-02-09.htm
Like I said from the beginning if people are going to argue about his prejudice and bigotry because Mexican isn't a race, it doesn't change anything for make Trump's bigotry any more acceptable.
I used to also think the margins for trump were inconsistently wild, except I started to look more and more into people like him who did get elected. They usually promised big and bribed internally for a good enough coalition to enrich themselves. Upon exiting, they and their apologists blamed the same system they promised to change "as unfixable" while saddling even more debt and misery than any "insider" could ever accomplish. Trump talks a lot about Third World Nation this and that. He should look more into Third World Nation leaders who talked exactly like him. The Human Cheeto isn't a Bloomberg or Perot. Their savvy and appeal came from being policy wonks on top of being billionaires rather than being a master showman of Breads and Circuses.
