Trumpster Fire

Darth Hussein Omar said:
You're faulting Trump for not spelling it out at the outset. Granted, he's bad about that sort of thing, but the judge's association with La Raza has everything to do with Trump's charge of bias. Not the fact he happened to be 'Mexican'.

Anti-Trump people [who wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances] are all over this because it props up their Trump is a racist narrative.

Independents without bias or preconceived notions will look at it as politics as usual.
Click to expand...

Here is the thing... IF the Judge is significantly involved with La Raza, that would give Trump a legitimate argument. Its not what Trump said... Trump said it was because the guy is a "Mexican".

Later Trump's people came back with the La Raza stuff, which I don't know is even true. Trump himself has not even mentioned La Raza.
 
Jarod said:
Here is the thing... IF the Judge is significantly involved with La Raza, that would give Trump a legitimate argument. Its not what Trump said... Trump said it was because the guy is a "Mexican".

Later Trump's people came back with the La Raza stuff, which I don't know is even true. Trump himself has not even mentioned La Raza.
Click to expand...

There is more than one "La Raza" and they are very different.
 
Leonthecat said:
13890044986943.gif


UNBELIEVABLE!
Click to expand...

Freedumb's idiocy is simply not worthy if address or note.
 
Jarod said:
Here is the thing... IF the Judge is significantly involved with La Raza, that would give Trump a legitimate argument. Its not what Trump said... Trump said it was because the guy is a "Mexican".

Later Trump's people came back with the La Raza stuff, which I don't know is even true. Trump himself has not even mentioned La Raza.
Click to expand...

they also proudly give scholarships to illegal immigrants :)
 
Althea said:
I've been convinced of that for some time. He simply cannot believe that he can alienate so many voting blocks, and still win an election.

One thing's for certain...he's unmasked an ugly demographic that walks among us.
Click to expand...

Nah the cretins and scum were always visible if you look at it right.
 
Jarod said:
Here is the thing... IF the Judge is significantly involved with La Raza, that would give Trump a legitimate argument. Its not what Trump said... Trump said it was because the guy is a "Mexican".

Later Trump's people came back with the La Raza stuff, which I don't know is even true. Trump himself has not even mentioned La Raza.
Click to expand...

"Trump’s suggestion that a Hispanic judge may treat him unfairly because of Trump’s border security proposals, such as the wall, challenges the claim that liberal judges engaged in identity politics are never biased against non-liberals. And while Democrats were enraged by Trump’s challenge, Trump struck fear into the hearts of establishment Republicans not accustomed to challenging the politically correct code to which they have previously surrendered.

Hillary Clinton immediately launched a political advertisement. The ad claimed that Trump’s questioning of Judge Curiel’s impartiality was “the definition of racism.” It also incorporated the growing list of Republicans condemning Trump’s Curiel criticism.

“I don’t condone the comments,” Sen. Bob Corker, another potential Trump VP, said on ABC’s “This Week,” adding Trump is “going to have to change.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated that he hoped Trump “will change direction” in dealing with Latinos.

But what exactly had Trump done wrong? How was it unreasonable to suggest that a judge belonging to a group pledging to advance Latino interests might be biased against the man who wants to build the wall that hinders the interests of Latino politicians?

Had we not just witnessed Latinos in San Jose throw eggs and sucker punches at Trump supporters, and wave the Mexican flag? Had not McConnell himself, by hoping Trump would change his standard rhetoric, conceded that liberal Latinos – of which Curiel belongs – viewed Trump’s proposals with animus?

If one listened to Hillary and her cabal of Republicans, Trump is a modern day version of Orval Faubus – the Arkansas governor who resisted court ordered integration of schools. But that conclusion is based on left-wing fan fiction that holds any time a white male questions a protected minority the motivation must be rooted in discriminatory animus.


Judge Curiel’s integrity is not being questioned by Trump just because of his Hispanic heritage. Trump is merely asserting that a person’s heritage does not foreclose a proper inquiry into their political activism and potential biases; he is suggesting that Curiel – a man who supports awarding an illegal alien a scholarship – might not view favorably a man who wants to deport the said scholarship recipient.

Recusal is a common theme when pro-choice advocates run up against pro-life judges. Recently, some scholars wanted Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself from McCullen v. Coakley; a case concerning abortion clinic buffer zones. But such requests are rarely viewed in a negative light.

The fact is seeking recusal – even if just discussing it – is a great way to preserve the integrity of the bench. Federal judges are appointed for life, unelected, and reviewed by other unelected judges. It is why Thomas Jefferson warned the federal bench could easily become a “despotism of an oligarchy.”

So why blast Trump for his Jeffersonian view of the judiciary? Democrats know Hillary is in trouble. They know the economic outlook is bleak and for almost 8 years the party has had no answers. It is why Hillary is making much ado about nothing and, frankly, the voters don’t care about the judicial politics of one class action lawsuit.

But this debate is not just about Trump or Trump University; it is about a politically correct double standard that permits liberals to use the faith of pro-life judges to boot them from a case, but calls questioning the ethnicity based activism of a liberal judge racism. And this is a concept the voters understand.

Liberals made Trump’s comments about race because they know a reasonable person might conclude Curiel’s activism creates the appearance of impropriety. The sad thing is Republicans, much like a battered spouse, are so accustomed to the politically correct abuse they accept it as the new normal.

By validating Hillary’s race card, Republican leaders have exhibited one of the worst examples of Stockholm syndrome. And when the dust settles, Newt will see that he and his fellow Republicans are the ones who made the “inexcusable” mistake."

https://www.google.com/amp/www.brei...ps-questioning-federal-judge-not-racist/amp/#
 
Trump is hanging himself and the GOP is agast so you condemn them?
Lol
Keep supporting his racism. I hope he doubles down on it, again.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
You're faulting Trump for not spelling it out at the outset. Granted, he's bad about that sort of thing, but the judge's association with La Raza has everything to do with Trump's charge of bias. Not the fact he happened to be 'Mexican'.

Anti-Trump people [who wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances] are all over this because it props up their Trump is a racist narrative.

Independents without bias or preconceived notions will look at it as politics as usual.
Click to expand...

The collective I.Q. of the entire intetnet just plummetted because of the idiocy of this post.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
"Trump’s suggestion that a Hispanic judge may treat him unfairly because of Trump’s border security proposals, such as the wall, challenges the claim that liberal judges engaged in identity politics are never biased against non-liberals. And while Democrats were enraged by Trump’s challenge, Trump struck fear into the hearts of establishment Republicans not accustomed to challenging the politically correct code to which they have previously surrendered.

Hillary Clinton immediately launched a political advertisement. The ad claimed that Trump’s questioning of Judge Curiel’s impartiality was “the definition of racism.” It also incorporated the growing list of Republicans condemning Trump’s Curiel criticism.

“I don’t condone the comments,” Sen. Bob Corker, another potential Trump VP, said on ABC’s “This Week,” adding Trump is “going to have to change.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated that he hoped Trump “will change direction” in dealing with Latinos.

But what exactly had Trump done wrong? How was it unreasonable to suggest that a judge belonging to a group pledging to advance Latino interests might be biased against the man who wants to build the wall that hinders the interests of Latino politicians?

Had we not just witnessed Latinos in San Jose throw eggs and sucker punches at Trump supporters, and wave the Mexican flag? Had not McConnell himself, by hoping Trump would change his standard rhetoric, conceded that liberal Latinos – of which Curiel belongs – viewed Trump’s proposals with animus?

If one listened to Hillary and her cabal of Republicans, Trump is a modern day version of Orval Faubus – the Arkansas governor who resisted court ordered integration of schools. But that conclusion is based on left-wing fan fiction that holds any time a white male questions a protected minority the motivation must be rooted in discriminatory animus.


Judge Curiel’s integrity is not being questioned by Trump just because of his Hispanic heritage. Trump is merely asserting that a person’s heritage does not foreclose a proper inquiry into their political activism and potential biases; he is suggesting that Curiel – a man who supports awarding an illegal alien a scholarship – might not view favorably a man who wants to deport the said scholarship recipient.

Recusal is a common theme when pro-choice advocates run up against pro-life judges. Recently, some scholars wanted Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself from McCullen v. Coakley; a case concerning abortion clinic buffer zones. But such requests are rarely viewed in a negative light.

The fact is seeking recusal – even if just discussing it – is a great way to preserve the integrity of the bench. Federal judges are appointed for life, unelected, and reviewed by other unelected judges. It is why Thomas Jefferson warned the federal bench could easily become a “despotism of an oligarchy.”

So why blast Trump for his Jeffersonian view of the judiciary? Democrats know Hillary is in trouble. They know the economic outlook is bleak and for almost 8 years the party has had no answers. It is why Hillary is making much ado about nothing and, frankly, the voters don’t care about the judicial politics of one class action lawsuit.

But this debate is not just about Trump or Trump University; it is about a politically correct double standard that permits liberals to use the faith of pro-life judges to boot them from a case, but calls questioning the ethnicity based activism of a liberal judge racism. And this is a concept the voters understand.

Liberals made Trump’s comments about race because they know a reasonable person might conclude Curiel’s activism creates the appearance of impropriety. The sad thing is Republicans, much like a battered spouse, are so accustomed to the politically correct abuse they accept it as the new normal.

By validating Hillary’s race card, Republican leaders have exhibited one of the worst examples of Stockholm syndrome. And when the dust settles, Newt will see that he and his fellow Republicans are the ones who made the “inexcusable” mistake."

https://www.google.com/amp/www.brei...ps-questioning-federal-judge-not-racist/amp/#
Click to expand...

Just stop you flailing idiot.
We get it; you are a racist and you are dumber than a bag of tadpoles.
You don't need to keep proving it.
 
Trump's language comes back to haunt him .bomb throwing is great-there is much to blow up.
But you gotta know when not to pull the pin, and not double down on it insead
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
But what exactly had Trump done wrong? How was it unreasonable to suggest that a judge belonging to a group pledging to advance Latino interests might be biased against the man who wants to build the wall that hinders the interests of Latino politicians?
Click to expand...

You keep ignoring the fact that Trump himself said it was due to the Judge being "Mexican", not because he belonged to a group...

You desperately want to add that part because it makes things different, but it was only added after people from the campaign, not Trump had a chance to amend the statement. The original statement illustrates Trump's racist thinking!

Remember, Trump is honest, he speaks from the heart, people like him because he is not PC.
 
The spin from posters like Darth reminds me of when Trump 1st suggested a ban on Muslims traveling into the U.S.

Even right-wingers like Hannity were so incredulous that they sort of fabricated that Trump meant until we can figure out a better way to screen them before they come into the country (more thorough background checks, etc.)

But Trump never said that, even when pressed about it. His 1st statement was "until we figure out what the hell is going on." When asked for details, he said that he meant until we figure out why they hate us so much.

Nothing about screening them more thoroughly or procedure. But Hannity & other Trump surrogates persist w/ that excuse-making to this day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top