GOP in meltdown as Trump doubles down on judge comments
90 replies, posted
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50472408]
And another one to the trump Godwin counter
[/QUOTE]
You're probably not so busy that you can't stop what you're doing and realise that I actually neither compared Trump to Hitler nor said he was in any way like him. What the other guy said was dumb, and so is what you just wrote.
What I [I]actually[/I] wrote is that claiming to be leftist and vote for Trump is like being an anarcho-communist and vote for Hitler. Trump isn't Hitler, and people who vote for Trump aren't anarcho-capitalists. But in both cases you can be pretty sure the voter is either dumb or politically very confused.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50469802]If the GOP crumbles to ruins, what will replace them?[/QUOTE]
They'd probably just be a broken mess for several years and then rebuild once people grow desperate for an alternative to the Democrats. It's highly unlikely that anyone would be able to gather enough support quickly enough to create a replacement.
What Muslim judge are you talking about?
As for the last comment you could be right that there might not be an unbiased federal judge for or against him, and this is hectic timing for this to be taking place too, but in this specific case both the firm and judge are part of NCLR and that is CoI. I wouldn't be saying anything if it wasn't for that tidbit. If he just happened to be Hispanic it wouldn't have any merit.
[QUOTE=Aredbomb;50473021]They'd probably just be a broken mess for several years and then rebuild once people grow desperate for an alternative to the Democrats. It's highly unlikely that anyone would be able to gather enough support quickly enough to create a replacement.[/QUOTE]
Libertarian party? Some see it as an alternative already.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50473034]What Muslim judge are you talking about?
As for the last comment you could be right that there might not be an unbiased federal judge for or against him, and this is hectic timing for this to be taking place too, but in this specific case both the firm and judge are part of NCLR and that is CoI. I wouldn't be saying anything if it wasn't for that tidbit. If he just happened to be Hispanic it wouldn't have any merit.[/QUOTE]
I'm just saying in the event he can't be judged by this judge based on biases, then you HAVE to accept that he can't be judged by a muslim judge as a muslim judge is going to have the bias of being told all people with his belief system aren't welcome, now you can't tell me there would be no bias there, can you?
I'm excited to see you try anyways.
Trump believes this guys race is going to bias him in the trial. Trump, thusly, would have to believe, in order to be internally consistent, that a potential muslim judge, would also be ineligible to pass judgement on him.
I believe, truly and honestly, and everything you've argued only seems to support this, that Trump would claim as many judges as possible, are in possession of too great of a bias, for them to judge him. I think, the logical conclusion of this argument is, only a white person could judge Trump without a chance of the trial being impacted by the race of the judge.
I just think that's a load of bullshit and he should get judged by whatever judge is assigned him barring any typical situations where a judge should recuse themselves.
why would mexicans hate trump though? he loves taco bowls!
Trump; not a big fan of the justice system, or the regulatory system, or the government in general, really anything that stands in his way.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50472458]He said it because he wanted a judge that's impartial. Having a La Raza judge on your case when your rallies most radical people are throwing Mexican flags an punches everywhere because you want to enforce borders would probably make you claim conflict of interest aswell.
But he should've presented those instead of say Mexican knowing that desperate people spin his words all the time[/QUOTE]
He specifically used the words "because of his Mexican heritage". You don't have to desperately spin shit.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50473118]Trump believes this guys race is going to bias him in the trial.[/QUOTE]
This isn't true.
[QUOTE=Reshy;50473069]Libertarian party? Some see it as an alternative already.[/QUOTE]
Not going to be even remotely appealing to most republican politicians unless it gets taken over by war hawks. At best their voterbase might grow a little bit.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50473364]This isn't true.[/QUOTE]
Yes it is clearly true based on his wording
You're literally doing Trumps job for him by spinning a negative into this awesome positive that shows how Trump is really the underdog
God damn he's done an amazing job whipping up the american public into a frenzy that will defend literally anything for no reason.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50473352]He specifically used the words "because of his Mexican heritage". You don't have to desperately spin shit.[/QUOTE]
Heritage isn't race. He's son to immigrants and owes his life to immigration, and that's why he's an NCLR member. "Desperately spin" would be to change definitions to fit your rush to convince people not to vote for him.
[QUOTE]"I'm building a wall. I'm trying to keep business out of Mexico. Mexico's fine," Trump said. "He's of Mexican heritage, and he's very proud of it, as I am of where I come from."[/QUOTE]
at this point, you're literally lying and bending over backwards to defend this man from statements he made
Why do you want a guy who can't speak clearly, can't communicate like an adult, why do you want HIM to rule your country?
First Un-endorsement:
[Media]https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/740268283048251393[/Media]
I can't believe people are actually stupid enough to buy into this tribble haired,cheeto looking conman's act but well people are pretty stupid. And yeah make whatever lame excuse you want saying a judge is biased cause he's mexican is really fucking racist.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50473388]at this point, you're literally lying and bending over backwards to defend this man from statements he made
Why do you want a guy who can't speak clearly, can't communicate like an adult, why do you want HIM to rule your country?[/QUOTE]
Here we go with the strawmans again. I've not said I want him for president, I've said he deserves a fair trial, and that an NCLR judge and prosecution is not fair for the guy literally trying to stop illegals and reenact deportation.
Here's a really good explanation of what recusal and conflict of interest are, and why this judge doesn't have to recuse himself. TLDR there is plenty of precedent on this, people have tried to pull similar things in the past and it's pretty well established that this kind of thing doesn't count as a conflict of interest or necessitate recusal
[url]https://popehat.com/2016/06/06/lawsplainer-when-must-federal-judges-recuse-themselves-anyway/[/url]
Here's the part about the La Raza stuff specifically
[quote][B]What about Judge Curiel's membership in a Latino organization?[/B]
Leaving aside for the moment whether the attack is deliberately dishonest because it conflates a bar association with a political advocacy group, membership before becoming a judge isn't grounds for recusal. Moreover, membership in a religious organization is not grounds for recusal. Membership in bar associations and legal associations like the one at issue here has repeatedly been found not to require recusal. That's not just for ethnic organizations. So, for instance, membership in the Guild of Catholic Lawyers was not a basis for recusal in a suit against the New York Archdiocese. Hoatson v. New York Archdiocese, 280 Fed.Appx. 88 (2nd Cir. 2008).
I will note that calling an organization "the race," even if you don't mean it that way and the phrase has been used to mean other things and it's history is totally different and it's not the same thing at all so shut up, is kind of asking for trouble.
Even if one argues that Judge Curiel's membership in a Latino attorney organization might show bias, Trump's lawyers would have a problem: they'd be arguing that the alleged bias didn't arise until long after Judge Curiel started hearing the case. Trump's argument, to the extent it can be nailed down, is that Trump wants to build a wall and Judge Curiel is a member of a Latino organization and therefore Judge Curiel is biased. But Trump didn't start talking about building a wall until Judge Curiel had already been hearing the case for years. In general, a party can't manufacture bias through new conduct after the judge has been assigned. That stops parties from judge-shopping. So, for instance, if I don't like how my case is going before a Turkish-American federal judge who is a member of a Turkish-American group, I can't force a judge-switch by becoming a loud advocate for official recognition of the Armenian Genocide.[/quote]
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50473411]Here we go with the strawmans again. I've not said I want him for president, I've said he deserves a fair trial, and that an NCLR judge and prosecution is not fair for the guy literally trying to stop illegals and reenact deportation.[/QUOTE]
Oh so so sorry for "strawmanning" you(You're overusing that term)
You defending him so valiantly, it's kind of hard to think you don't want him elected.
So do you see why race plays into this yet or not? Do you see why I made my post about a hypothetical muslim judge, and his "out" in that scenario as well?
Does Trump get to decide who judges Trump? Who gets to if we keep eliminating judges based on their heritage, biases, or otherwise? How preferential does a judge have to be to have the authority to judge someone?
Well, I'm sure he won't get away with this because you're right about that but I don't think it's unreasonable to claim he has a bias, even CNN, one of his enemies, showed it.
[quote]"My parents came here from Mexico with a dream of providing their children opportunities," Curiel said in his introduction to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2012. "And they've been able to do that with the opportunities that this country has to offer."
The future federal judge was born in East Chicago, Indiana, in 1953. His parents, both immigrants from Jalisco, Mexico, were naturalized citizens.
Curiel's brother, Raul, told The New York Times his father first entered the country as a laborer in Arizona in the 1920s. That would mean Curiel's father was actually in the U.S. before Trump's own mother (she arrived in the 1930s), who -- like Curiel's -- became a citizen herself after marrying his father.
"My concern is that (Trump's attacks are) hurting other people. It's hurting our image as sons of immigrants. It hurts our people in general," Raul Curiel said in interview with CNN on Monday. "Being a Hispanic, it hurts these kinds of things. It doesn't hurt me personally. And I don't think it hurts my brother personally. We're above those kinds of things."[/quote]
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/politics/judge-gonzalo-curiel-donald-trump-university/[/url]
It's completely fair to say his ancestral pride may impact his judgement.
It's possible the guy wouldn't be in America if Trump was president in the 50s.
[editline]7th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50473451]Oh so so sorry for "strawmanning" you(You're overusing that term)
You defending him so valiantly, it's kind of hard to think you don't want him elected.
So do you see why race plays into this yet or not? Do you see why I made my post about a hypothetical muslim judge, and his "out" in that scenario as well?
Does Trump get to decide who judges Trump? Who gets to if we keep eliminating judges based on their heritage, biases, or otherwise? How preferential does a judge have to be to have the authority to judge someone?[/QUOTE]
I'm just getting tired of criticism of him devolving into bullshit and racism claims, because there's valid criticism to have and no ones being convinced by sensationalizing everything he does. It's getting him further, it would seem.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50473458]Well, I'm sure he won't get away with this because you're right about that but I don't think it's unreasonable to claim he has a bias, even CNN, one of his enemies, showed it.
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/politics/judge-gonzalo-curiel-donald-trump-university/[/url]
It's completely fair to say his ancestral pride may impact his judgement.
It's possible the guy wouldn't be in America if Trump was president in the 50s.
[editline]7th June 2016[/editline]
I'm just getting tired of criticism of him devolving into bullshit and racism claims, because there's valid criticism to have and no ones being convinced by sensationalizing everything he does. It's getting him further, it would seem.[/QUOTE]
So you're tired of reality not impacting this guy? Me too. Because the fact of the matter is, deciding that because a person is of mexican heritage, that he's unable to judge you, because you have pledged to hurt their economy, and people so badly that they'll never recover, is racist. People of that heritage have every right to pass judgement, and they have every right to sit as a judge and pass judgement, doing their best to remove their biases.
You're basically saying Trump needs a judge who doesn't fall into any camps that Trump has bullied in the past, leaving just camps that Trump is in support of.
I don't know that you've thought this through enough at all to understand the implications of what I'm saying.
[editline]7th June 2016[/editline]
And instead you're focusing purely on how despite everything, Trump isn't, never was, and never will be, the least bit racist
[editline]7th June 2016[/editline]
Fuck it, lemme boil this down to the simplest fucking thing.
Can a person that is biased against Trump, in any way, shape or form, over any subject, policy, or statement, EVER pass judgement on Trump that you, or Trump himself, would consider to be "Valid"?
Because it seems like the answer to that is a resolute "No".
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50473034]What Muslim judge are you talking about?
As for the last comment you could be right that there might not be an unbiased federal judge for or against him, and this is hectic timing for this to be taking place too, but in this specific case both the firm and judge are part of NCLR and that is CoI. I wouldn't be saying anything if it wasn't for that tidbit. If he just happened to be Hispanic it wouldn't have any merit.[/QUOTE]
Does the Trump University lawsuit have anything whatsoever to do with immigration policy or Hispanic culture? Unless there are details of the case that I'm not aware of, which is totally possible, my understanding is that the class action lawsuit against Trump U is based on the program failing to deliver access to the kind of material it was promising, in violation of federal law.
The lawsuit has nothing to do with Hispanics or immigration so far as I can tell, so in what way would a Hispanic judge being a member of an organization involved in issues affecting Hispanic people and culture have any undue bias regarding the outcome of the case? What do the judge's personal positions on immigration have to do with this lawsuit? How is his race a factor in any way whatsoever?
Again, please correct me if I'm missing some pertinent info here. The Trump U lawsuit isn't something I've been closely following. I just don't see any legitimacy to Trump's claims. The only racial bias I'm seeing here is from Trump himself.
[QUOTE]"My parents came here from Mexico with a dream of providing their children opportunities," Curiel said in his introduction to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2012. "And they've been able to do that with the opportunities that this country has to offer."
The future federal judge was born in East Chicago, Indiana, in 1953. His parents, both immigrants from Jalisco, Mexico, were naturalized citizens.
[B]Curiel's brother, Raul, told The New York Times his father first entered the country as a laborer in Arizona in the 1920s. That would mean Curiel's father was actually in the U.S. before Trump's own mother (she arrived in the 1930s), who -- like Curiel's -- became a citizen herself after marrying his father.[/B]
"My concern is that (Trump's attacks are) hurting other people. It's hurting our image as sons of immigrants. It hurts our people in general," Raul Curiel said in interview with CNN on Monday. "Being a Hispanic, it hurts these kinds of things. It doesn't hurt me personally. And I don't think it hurts my brother personally. We're above those kinds of things."[/QUOTE]
From CNN.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50473729]Does the Trump University lawsuit have anything whatsoever to do with immigration policy or Hispanic culture? Unless there are details of the case that I'm not aware of, which is totally possible, my understanding is that the class action lawsuit against Trump U is based on the program failing to deliver access to the kind of material it was promising, in violation of federal law.
The lawsuit has nothing to do with Hispanics or immigration so far as I can tell, so in what way would a Hispanic judge being a member of an organization involved in issues affecting Hispanic people and culture have any undue bias regarding the outcome of the case? What do the judge's personal positions on immigration have to do with this lawsuit? How is his race a factor in any way whatsoever?
Again, please correct me if I'm missing some pertinent info here. The Trump U lawsuit isn't something I've been closely following. I just don't see any legitimacy to Trump's claims. The only racial bias I'm seeing here is from Trump himself.[/QUOTE]
I don't believe it is racial bias though. Trump is an enemy and his policies are an affront to the NCLR and its purpose. The judge himself has said his life was owed to immigration, he's joined a movement to make it easier and to not deport illegals because of it.
No, Trump U specifically is not related to the Hispanic issue, it's a personal bias. I'm having a hard time explaining this I can tell.
Let's say maybe a candidate's most popular position is to cut off aid to Israel, then he gets caught up in shenanigans and has to go to court. He then finds out his judge is a patriotic descendant of Israel immigrants, and a proud member of the JDL.
Would that not seem a little intimidating? If I found myself in this kind of situation I would prefer a judge that doesn't hail to a collective that has motif to treat me badly. More realistically if i was to have this happen to myself it'd be related to my advocacy for artistic freedom in especially video games, and i made a mistake, go to trial. If I found out my judge and prosecution were FemFrequency/Ghazi etc backers I'd be pretty upset and ask for a replacement too.
I don't think that's unreasonable. That's my only point.
I'm not saying he's a good candidate
I'm not saying race matters
I'm not suggesting he's innocent
I'm not even saying that it'd be a travesty if they didn't get a more impartial judge.
I'm simply saying that it's not a racist comment and that there's a point there saying that his judge and prosecutor could be biased due to their background. The judge and law firm are both part of NCLR. The purpose of NCLR is immigration leniency and stopping deportation. Trump is the polar opposite, pretty much the opposition manifested.
So how do you find a judge that's unbiased when Trump is basically intentionally in the business of antagonizing everyone who doesn't agree with him?
You give him a judge that's biased towards him?
Or do you just trust this judge in this case to keep his bias aside because his mexican heritage has [B]literally nothing to do with his ability to judge Donald Trump in a fraud case around a university[/B]?
Do you understand how I [B]fully[/B] get your argument that you just want a fair trial for Trump, but that what you're asking for is essentially preferential treatment by eliminating all judges who have a visible bias against him. Hence, muslim judges and the other hypotheticals I've brought up that you've been keen to ignore.
I don't believe that all of them are as potentially bias as this one, like you imply. I don't think you're choosing "bias for" or "bias against".
Is it actually that bad of a selection? I have some faith that there's at least one impartial "blind" federal judge.
Also I didn't ignore your Muslim comment, I specifically said them simply being born into the Muslim race isn't enough to go on, this guy isn't simply hispanic, he has ties to a collective that exists purely in opposition to what Trump will do as president, yknow?
The collective, NCLR, is "a group that advocates in favor of progressive immigration reform policies, including a path to citizenship and reduced deportations."
Trump has been vocally opposed to that purpose, everyone knows he wants to deport illegals and build a wall.
I get that these issues are not related to Trump U but Trump is the current face of the opposition to NCLR's ideals, and Trump is, afaik, legally responsible for Trump U. A loss here could actually be a real threat to his campaign and his image, which NCLR has to be desperate for as the guy is close to the presidency and will set their movement back to the starting line.
I don't like bringing up other threads, but I remember you talked about it being bad that Hogan's legal fees were funded by someone who was harmed by Gawker aswell. I was in opposition to you because I don't think legal fees matter, who's putting up the money doesn't change a thing about how it plays out except for stopping hogan from being stonewalled. A judge however could effect the outcome. If the judge in that case was instead the guy who's backing hogan I'd totally agree.
It also would give Gawker a way to shrug off the rep damage by being able to connect these dots, and if Trump is truly in the wrong on the case, it'd be best if he didn't have legitimate reasons to shrug off to his supporters that it's because of his political views and the judges' allegiance.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50474428]I don't believe that all of them are as potentially bias as this one, like you imply. I don't think you're choosing "bias for" or "bias against".[/QUOTE]
You're not even going off of anything other than Trumps argument that he didn't get a fair trial, one which he has dropped now.
[QUOTE]Is it actually that bad of a selection? I have some faith that there's at least one impartial "blind" federal judge.[/QUOTE]
That's not even what I'm talking about. When you start talking about what bias's a person can hold while still being eligible to judge a person like Trump, you're creating a system of "unfairness" where Trump can only be judged by favourable biases because anyone who holds a negative bias would just... what?
[QUOTE]Also I didn't ignore your Muslim comment, I specifically said them simply being born into the Muslim race isn't enough to go on, this guy isn't simply hispanic, he has ties to a collective that exists purely in opposition to what Trump will do as president, yknow?[/QUOTE]
So a muslim would feel no compulsion towards his compatriots in America as the leading candidate campaigns to have all further muslims banned from entering until "We know what's going on"? Really?
You're making some pretty tenuous arguments.
[QUOTE]The collective, NCLR, is "a group that advocates in favor of progressive immigration reform policies, including a path to citizenship and reduced deportations."
Trump has been vocally opposed to that purpose, everyone knows he wants to deport illegals and build a wall.[/QUOTE]
So here's where we get a problem. You refuse to give the judge any credit in being able to put his biases aside. So, what kind of judge CAN he get? Would you rule someone out if they're biased against Trump?
[QUOTE]I get that these issues are not related to Trump U but Trump is the current face of the opposition to NCLR's ideals, and Trump is, afaik, legally responsible for Trump U. A loss here could actually be a real threat to his campaign and his image, which NCLR has to be desperate for as the guy is close to the presidency and will set their movement back to the starting line.[/QUOTE]
I think you're insulting the living fuck out of the judge by basically saying there's no chance he'll be able to put his bias aside.
[QUOTE]I don't like bringing up other threads, but I remember you talked about it being bad that Hogan's legal fees were funded by someone who was harmed by Gawker aswell. I was in opposition to you because I don't think legal fees matter, who's putting up the money doesn't change a thing about how it plays out except for stopping hogan from being stonewalled. A judge however could effect the outcome. If the judge in that case was instead the guy who's backing hogan I'd totally agree.[/QUOTE]
Someone who hates something, spent millions to attempt to destroy it, not because it was the "right thing to do" but because he had/has a personal vendetta against them.
You're really going to waste my time with that comparison?
[QUOTE]It also would give Gawker a way to shrug off the rep damage by being able to connect these dots, and if Trump is truly in the wrong on the case, it'd be best if he didn't have legitimate reasons to shrug off to his supporters that it's because of his political views and the judges' allegiance.[/QUOTE]
He's already said he's going to drop the line of comments going further because the race of the man was specifically what Trump focused on, unlike you who focused on a legitimate issue, Trump focused on his nationality and heritage, you cannot deny this without just putting words in Trumps mouth.
First thing I see loading the page is "I think you're insulting the living fuck out of the judge by basically saying [b]there's no chance he'll be able to put his bias aside[/b]."
I'm all for discussing this but if you're going to constantly argue me on points I'm not advancing, I am pretty much done repeating myself. This has been a very confusing talk. You said I am overusing the term strawman but I think you're overusing the tactic.
While I was typing this I saw the last bit though. Is it true trump is backing off? I thought he was doubling down.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50474639]First thing I see loading the page is "I think you're insulting the living fuck out of the judge by basically saying [b]there's no chance he'll be able to put his bias aside[/b]."
I'm all for discussing this but if you're going to constantly argue me on points I'm not advancing, I am pretty much done repeating myself. This has been a very confusing talk. You said I am overusing the term strawman but I think you're overusing the tactic.
While I was typing this I saw the last bit though. Is it true trump is backing off? I thought he was doubling down.[/QUOTE]
Not once did you say, specify, or make concessions for the fact this guy can put his biases aside. Yes, it could be interpreted one way or the other, but the issue is that could happen regardless, with any judge.
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/politics/donald-trump-downplays-gonzalo-curiel-wake-of-criticism/index.html[/url]
[QUOTE]Yet even as Trump needled Curiel for treating him "very, very unfairly," he largely signaled a new tone in the interview on Monday evening.
"I want to focus on things that we need to focus on," Trump said, "not a civil lawsuit that I'm going to end up winning anyway."[/QUOTE]
I'm totally at a loss for what you really want out of this, yes you've stated you just want him to get a fair trial but he's getting one, just you and Trump seem to agree it's not fair, but the rest of the world is going "yeah, it's fine".
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50474428]I don't believe that all of them are as potentially bias as this one, like you imply. I don't think you're choosing "bias for" or "bias against".
Is it actually that bad of a selection? I have some faith that there's at least one impartial "blind" federal judge.
Also I didn't ignore your Muslim comment, I specifically said them simply being born into the Muslim race isn't enough to go on, this guy isn't simply hispanic, he has ties to a collective that exists purely in opposition to what Trump will do as president, yknow?
The collective, NCLR, is "a group that advocates in favor of progressive immigration reform policies, including a path to citizenship and reduced deportations."
Trump has been vocally opposed to that purpose, everyone knows he wants to deport illegals and build a wall.
I get that these issues are not related to Trump U but Trump is the current face of the opposition to NCLR's ideals, and Trump is, afaik, legally responsible for Trump U. A loss here could actually be a real threat to his campaign and his image, which NCLR has to be desperate for as the guy is close to the presidency and will set their movement back to the starting line.
I don't like bringing up other threads, but I remember you talked about it being bad that Hogan's legal fees were funded by someone who was harmed by Gawker aswell. I was in opposition to you because I don't think legal fees matter, who's putting up the money doesn't change a thing about how it plays out except for stopping hogan from being stonewalled. A judge however could effect the outcome. If the judge in that case was instead the guy who's backing hogan I'd totally agree.
It also would give Gawker a way to shrug off the rep damage by being able to connect these dots, and if Trump is truly in the wrong on the case, it'd be best if he didn't have legitimate reasons to shrug off to his supporters that it's because of his political views and the judges' allegiance.[/QUOTE]
You think that his ties to a hispanic organization that considers Trump an "enemy" means that the judge is willing to risk/throw away his entire judicial career over it?
Alert: Trump is still talking about Trump U in sean Hannity Tonight.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.