• GOP in meltdown as Trump doubles down on judge comments
    90 replies, posted
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/us/politics/democrats-trump-presidential-race.html[/url] [quote]Democratic leaders nationwide sought to exact a political price from Republican officials and candidates on Monday for continuing to support Donald J. Trump after his explosive remarks challenging the objectivity of judges with Mexican or Muslim backgrounds. In an unusually coordinated series of attacks leveled from congressional offices and the Senate floor, in state capitols and sidewalk protests, Democrats excoriated Mr. Trump as racist and demanded that Republicans either stand behind his comments or condemn him and even rescind their endorsements of his candidacy. Democrats received unexpected ammunition from Mr. Trump himself, who, in an extraordinary conference call with allies on Monday, urged them to defend his criticisms of a federal judge’s Mexican heritage — and then rebuked his campaign staff for having suggested otherwise. Mr. Trump’s doggedness, and his chastisement of his own aides, contributed to a sense of powerlessness among Republicans who said they increasingly saw no way to influence Mr. Trump’s behavior or to convince him that his actions could hurt the party in competitive House, Senate and governor’s races.[/quote] Motherfucking Lindsey Graham has implied Clinton may be preferable to Trump [quote]“This is the most un-American thing from a politician since Joe McCarthy,” Mr. Graham said. “If anybody was looking for an off-ramp, this is probably it,” he added. “There’ll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary.”[/quote]
If "preferable" is used in this article the same way falling to your death is "preferable" to burning alive; then yes, I suppose Hillary/Trump is "preferable" to Trump/Hillary
He should have just kept his mouth shut if he wanted to win. [quote]“There’ll come a time when the love of country will [b]trump[/b] hatred of Hillary.”[/quote] ahh ha
it's going to become clearer and clearer that the story here is more the ruin of the Republican party rather than the emergence of a new political force backing Trump
If the GOP crumbles to ruins, what will replace them?
It looks like Trump isn't going to suddenly become a rational actor for the general election, and even if he did, how do you respond to this: [media]https://youtu.be/9QUYQUd0Qh8[/media]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50469802]If the GOP crumbles to ruins, what will replace them?[/QUOTE] A party of the exact same ideologies but with a different name. Conservative party, Nationalist party, whatever.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50469802]If the GOP crumbles to ruins, what will replace them?[/QUOTE] Hard to say, really. We need to wait for the dust to settle before we can make an accurate guess.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50469802]If the GOP crumbles to ruins, what will replace them?[/QUOTE] I would be shocked if the Republican Party dissolves considering how its been around since the Civil War. Either the politicians will be thrown out to match the voters or the voters will meld to the politicians.
Now if only the democrats hated their candidate as much as the republicans hate theirs.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50469973]Now if only the democrats hated their candidate as much as the republicans hate theirs.[/QUOTE] Life-long secular humanist progressive liberal democrat here. I'd vote Trump long, long before I vote Hillary.
[QUOTE]Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding. The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith. [I](June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 898; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 65, 63 Stat. 99.)[/I][/QUOTE] I don't see how it's considered racism for there to be a potential conflict of interest when it's likely that the judge in question has a good number of connections to people of Mexican heritage. In the same way that it would be illegal for the judge to serve trial over a case in which he's friends with the defendant, it's additionally illegal to serve trial over a case in which the judge may be particularly biased towards a point of view other than what United States law states. Where's the racism, here? Claiming that it's preferable to have a judge that has no potential biases? If I were sitting on the jury/judge seat asking whether I want to help Israelis, my answer would undoubtedly be biased to support Israel. I don't think it's racist to claim that there're definitely potential biases in play, and I'm happy that Trump hasn't taken back his statements yet.
[QUOTE=Monkah;50470002]I don't see how it's considered racism for there to be a potential conflict of interest when it's likely that the judge in question has a good number of connections to people of Mexican heritage. In the same way that it would be illegal for the judge to serve trial over a case in which he's friends with the defendant, it's additionally illegal to serve trial over a case in which the judge may be particularly biased towards a point of view other than what United States law states. Where's the racism, here? Claiming that it's preferable to have a judge that has no potential biases? If I were sitting on the jury/judge seat asking whether I want to help Israelis, my answer would undoubtedly be biased to support Israel. I don't think it's racist to claim that there's definitely potential biases in play, and I'm happy that Trump hasn't taken back his statements yet.[/QUOTE] You wouldnt say a white dude has bias against blacks because of their race. You are implying that people with Mexican heritage are all one group and know each other rather than being individuals. You can always find some common ground to bias a judge's decision, be it race, sex, color of hair, favourite sports team etc. I find it actually racist that you imply that a person of mexican heritage cannot look beyond a person's race and attempt being as unbiased as possible.
[QUOTE=Monkah;50470002]I don't see how it's considered racism for there to be a potential conflict of interest when it's likely that the judge in question has a good number of connections to people of Mexican heritage. In the same way that it would be illegal for the judge to serve trial over a case in which he's friends with the defendant, it's additionally illegal to serve trial over a case in which the judge may be particularly biased towards a point of view other than what United States law states. Where's the racism, here? Claiming that it's preferable to have a judge that has no potential biases? If I were sitting on the jury/judge seat asking whether I want to help Israelis, my answer would undoubtedly be biased to support Israel. I don't think it's racist to claim that there're definitely potential biases in play, and I'm happy that Trump hasn't taken back his statements yet.[/QUOTE] Except that the trump university lawsuits have absolutely nothing to do with mexican heritage.
[QUOTE=Mmrnmhrm;50470014]You wouldnt say a white dude has bias against blacks because of their race. You are implying that people with Mexican heritage are all one group and know each other rather than being individuals. You can always find some common ground to bias a judge's decision, be it race, sex, color of hair, favourite sports team etc. I find it actually racist that you imply that a person of mexican heritage cannot look beyond a person's race and attempt being as unbiased as possible.[/QUOTE] Well, I find it racist that you imply that a person of Mexican heritage is incapable of being incapable of looking beyond a person's race and attempt to be as unbiased as possible. With that ridiculous line of thought aside... [QUOTE]You are implying that people with Mexican heritage are all one group and know each other[/QUOTE] Mexicans generally have Mexican friends, live in Mexican communities, and come from and belong to Mexican families. This isn't a [I]*racist*[/I] idea, it's the simple truth. There's probably an insane amount of pressure on the guy to side in a way that would benefit that of those close to him. Ideally speaking, a judge should be as neutral and unbiased as possible. The current judge is arguably not ideal due to these circumstances. It's nothing against the dude personally, but it's ridiculous to deny that there's no potential bias at play.
[QUOTE=Monkah;50470028]Well, I find it racist that you imply that a person of Mexican heritage is incapable of being capable of looking beyond a person's race and attempt to be as unbiased as possible. With that ridiculous line of thought aside... Mexicans generally have Mexican friends, live in Mexican communities, and come from and belong to Mexican families. This isn't a [I]*racist*[/I] idea, it's the simple truth. There's probably an insane amount of pressure on the guy to side in a way that would benefit that of those close to him. Ideally speaking, a judge should be as neutral and unbiased as possible. The current judge is arguably not ideal due to these circumstances. It's nothing against the dude personally, but it's ridiculous to deny that there's no potential bias at play.[/QUOTE] The judge is unbiased. Implying hes biased becaused he shares the nationality of the defendant is the kind of ignorant and desperate logic ive come to expect from trump and his supporters.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;50470064]The judge is unbiased. Implying hes biased becaused he shares the nationality of the defendant is the kind of ignorant and desperate logic ive come to expect from trump and his supporters.[/QUOTE] If that's what you managed to gather from my post, I sincerely worry about your level of reading comprehension. Do you guys ever do anything other than point fingers and yell 'ignorant racist!'?
Devil's advocate his race/nationality has nothing to do with trumpu but Trump's incendiary remarks about Mexicans do. That being said it was still a dumb idea for trump to bring it up. Unless he was trying to get some free airtime
[QUOTE=Monkah;50470067]If that's what you managed to gather from my post, I sincerely worry about your level of reading comprehension. Do you guys ever do anything other than point fingers and yell 'ignorant racist!'?[/QUOTE] lmao you're literally implying that the judge is biased against donald trump because they're Mexican, as if all Mexicans are some hivemind that share opinions or something. so the next step is that mexicans shouldn't be judges? or just on this case? how do you determine if a mexican should be allowed to be a judge on a particular case? but obviously, pointing out how ignorant this is just means they haven't read the post, duh
[QUOTE=Monkah;50470002]I don't see how it's considered racism for there to be a potential conflict of interest when it's likely that the judge in question has a good number of connections to people of Mexican heritage. In the same way that it would be illegal for the judge to serve trial over a case in which he's friends with the defendant, it's additionally illegal to serve trial over a case in which the judge may be particularly biased towards a point of view other than what United States law states. Where's the racism, here? Claiming that it's preferable to have a judge that has no potential biases? If I were sitting on the jury/judge seat asking whether I want to help Israelis, my answer would undoubtedly be biased to support Israel. I don't think it's racist to claim that there're definitely potential biases in play, and I'm happy that Trump hasn't taken back his statements yet.[/QUOTE] It makes no sense to say that a judge would be more biased based on ethnicity when an enormous amount of the white population already thinks that Trump's wall is fucking stupid and that he has atrocious policy positions. Many born and raised white Americans think Trump has horrible policies, and many Hispanics want Trump to be the president. While there may be general trends that Hispanics are less likely to support him than other ethnicities, that's a very flimsy reason to assume anything about his political position. Moreover, this case isn't about Trump's Mexico plans, it's about Trump's allegedly fraudulent colleges in the US. Trump is suggesting that because of his wall, a Hispanic person would probably have a strong political opinion of Trump himself that could influence their work as a judge. Well you know who happens to have strong political opinions on Donald Trump? Every fucking person in the United States of America. If being likely to have a strong political opinion on Donald Trump is enough for a judge to have too much bias in a case unrelated to Trump's political efforts, then there's not a suitable judge in the country for this case.
[QUOTE=1/4 Life;50469979]Life-long secular humanist progressive liberal democrat here. I'd vote Trump long, long before I vote Hillary.[/QUOTE] Then I'm guessing the only thing in that list you actually are is secular
[QUOTE=Zeke129;50470261]Then I'm guessing the only thing in that list you actually are is secular[/QUOTE] Why? Because feeling jaded by a candidate means that you have to throw away all your other beliefs in order to vote against them? This is some no-true-Scotsman nonsense here.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;50470357]Why? Because feeling jaded by a candidate means that you have to throw away all your other beliefs in order to vote against them? This is some no-true-Scotsman nonsense here.[/QUOTE] i'd say that is exactly what's happening though, they're throwing away their political beliefs and principles because they dislike a candidate and voting for their rival who holds different positions to them, that isn't no true scotsman, that's what he actually posted
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;50470357]Why? Because feeling jaded by a candidate means that you have to throw away all your other beliefs in order to vote against them? This is some no-true-Scotsman nonsense here.[/QUOTE] Feeling jaded by a candidate is one thing, but instead actively voting for one that goes against practically all of your beliefs is insane. Especially when that candidate happens to be Donald Trump.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;50470357]Why? Because feeling jaded by a candidate means that you have to throw away all your other beliefs in order to vote against them? This is some no-true-Scotsman nonsense here.[/QUOTE] If I said that I really like hitler, you probably wouldn't believe me if I said I were an anarcho-communist. With good reason. That isn't "no try Scotsman", it's common sense.
Someone should really ask the congressmen "do you really support this?" They keep going on about how they support the party's nominee (note that doesn't mean trump yet) but nobody has asked them "will you go out in 4 months and campaign for this guy, knowing what he says?"
I still think Trump is a clinton plant. This is all too convenient.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50471261]I still think Trump is a clinton plant. This is all too convenient.[/QUOTE] I actually think Trump got Brain Damage back in 2009.
If you watch any old interview of Trump, he seems like a typical savvy businessman. I wonder what happened that made him seem unpredictable, unstable, and sometimes just wrong.
[QUOTE=Glitchman;50471305]If you watch any old interview of Trump, he seems like a typical savvy businessman. I wonder what happened that made him seem unpredictable, unstable, and sometimes just wrong.[/QUOTE] Brain Damage.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.