Trump's attacks American judge as Mexican

[Bill the Cat]

And most of the Supreme Court are members of an organization (the Catholic Church) in which procuring an abortion or helping someone procure an abortion incurs automatic excommunication.

Excommunication is not the same as boycotting a set of businesses. And especially if you are hearing a case against the very owner of those companies the organization you are a member of vowed to boycott. That's textbook bias.

The Hispanic outcry against Trump started in 2015. These lawsuits have been brewing for long before that.

And Trump didn't mention bias until after his statement on immigration, therefore, it can't be reasonably stated to be a "Mexican thing" as much as it is a bias against his policies thing

This judge admitted the case in 2014. It was not an anti-Trump vendetta that led this judge to take on this case.

No one stated that. There wasn't a problem until after Trump spoke specifically on immigration.

And if Trump really believes that these organizations might now influence the judge to make a judgment against him, maybe his lawyers should file a motion instead of him questioning the judge's integrity in the national media. And all of that is without even considering the merits of the case itself.

The lawyers for Trump have already said they would find it hard to prove bias, and expensive.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Trump is obviously a man who respects the law and will dutifully follow the Constitution. He won't be like Obama, issuing executive orders all over the place to enforce his will on everyone.

He can't do worse than Obumbles has...

One more point to consider: as the NR article points out, the judge has had some rather inimical relations with drug cartels from south of the border. If indeed the wall would be part of an effective border enforcement strategy (lol),

Ok. Stop right there. Have you ever been to the border wall in San Diego? I have. I helped build it! I spoke with the border guards there for several weeks, and they have unequivocally supported the success of the walls there in slowing the influx of illegals. It's nigh impossible to stop them completely, but the idea is to make it harder to cross and, utilizing some technological equipment, easier to spot them.

and if border enforcement is largely about stopping the cartels (lololol),

You are insulting some good people Spart. It's kinda disgusting if you ask me... Border Patrol are doing their best with what they have, and are not only fighting the illegal crossers and the ignorant politicians, but now the uninformed Google warriors. Take the time and actually visit the wall and talk to those on the ground. Don't just rely on reporters.

then we might even expect this judge to support the wall. Or we could look to the oft-cited argument that legal immigrants don't like illegal immigrants who broke the rules, jumped the line, etc.

What about it? It's true.

[fm93]

He can't do worse than Obumbles has...

Hold it right there, because that's just ridiculous. Donald ABSOLUTELY can do worse than President Obama has. Under Obama's presidency, the world did not end, and the economy slowly improved. Yes, there's still a long way to go, and it's possible that the improvement may not have actually been due to his policies, but nevertheless, that is a positive development.

Donald, on the other hand, is rude, nasty, and boorish to reporters and really just about anyone he disagrees with, has advanced clearly imbecilic conspiracy theories (i.e. the Obama birth certificate fiasco), is juvenile and immature in his debates, has shown great enthusiasm for bombing other countries, is endorsed by leaders of the Ku Klux Klan, for crying out loud, has supported dangerous pseudoscientific ideas such as those of vaccines causing autism, has proposed unconstitutional ideas such as deporting citizens on the basis of their religion, contradicts himself about the wall and other issues more than any other politician I've ever seen, and has no experience with politics. Obama at least had senatorial experience before his presidency.

Simply put, Donald is not emotionally, intellectually, mentally, or morally fit to serve as president. Can you imagine a man that volatile and irrational receiving access to nuclear codes? (Can it with snarky replies insinuating that Obama is such a man, because of all the things one can say about him, "volatile" is not one of them--not nearly as much as Donald, anyways.)

You are insulting some good people Spart. It's kinda disgusting if you ask me...

I would say that heaping the term "illegals" among people who primarily just want to make a better life for their families and themselves constitutes "insulting some good people." And it's very disgusting, if you ask me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they all should be granted amnesty or anything like that. And obviously, the small subset of undocumented immigrants who do set out to commit crime can't be allowed to stay.

[Mountain Man]

Oh look, the judge isn't part of any radical group after all, and the student who received the scholarship only identified himself as an undocumented immigrant after he'd already been selected for it. In other words, Curiel awarded the scholarship while thinking the student was a documented immigrant.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...migrant-group/

Nice attempt at a whitewash. I posted this earlier, but it seems worthwhile to repeat it:

Source: The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/06/me...eir-community/

© Copyright Original Source

And then there's this:

Source: Breitbart

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...ps-businesses/

© Copyright Original Source

To pretend that all of these associations and affiliations don't create a potential conflict of interest is either naive or disingenuous. I see here a judge who would love more than anything to take Trump out, and now that he has a chance to do it, do you really think he won't make the most of the opportunity?

[Spartacus]

And Trump didn't mention bias until after his statement on immigration, therefore, it can't be reasonably stated to be a "Mexican thing" as much as it is a bias against his policies thing

Which means the way Trump has spoken about this is a further testament to his being totally unsuitable to the office of the President. Or any position in which he has any control over anything of consequence. To fall back on the old cliche, would you vote for him for dog catcher?

No one stated that. There wasn't a problem until after Trump spoke specifically on immigration.

Therefore the proposition that Trump was complicit in if not actively participating in a conspiracy to defraud people through Trump University is an allegation that should be taken more seriously.

The lawyers for Trump have already said they would find it hard to prove bias, and expensive.

I'd say that Trump can afford it, but I really can't say for sure: he still hasn't released his tax returns.

He can't do worse than Obumbles has...

I'd rather sit through another 4 years of Obama than Trump's first 100 days. The only thing that could possibly redeem a Trump presidency is an effective Republican Congress that advances its own agenda and won't let him get away with his worst ideas.

Ok. Stop right there. Have you ever been to the border wall in San Diego? I have. I helped build it! I spoke with the border guards there for several weeks, and they have unequivocally supported the success of the walls there in slowing the influx of illegals. It's nigh impossible to stop them completely, but the idea is to make it harder to cross and, utilizing some technological equipment, easier to spot them.

If a wall would be helpful, a man with such contempt for the drug cartels as this judge has would probably like the idea, regardless of what professional associations he belongs to.

You are insulting some good people Spart. It's kinda disgusting if you ask me...

Oh, my apologies, I only intended to insult Trump apologists.

Border Patrol are doing their best with what they have, and are not only fighting the illegal crossers and the ignorant politicians, but now the uninformed Google warriors.

If one twentysomething on an obscure corner of the Internet is something border patrol actively has to deal with, they evidently don't have enough work to do.

What about it? It's true.

There are at least as many reasons to think that this judge personally favors more effective border enforcement than any alternative.

[fm93]

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...ps-businesses/[/cite]
To pretend that all of these associations and affiliations don't create a potential conflict of interest is either naive or disingenuous. I see here a judge who would love more than anything to take Trump out, and now that he has a chance to do it, do you really think he won't make the most of the opportunity?

Nah. JPH no doubt considers apologists who happen to be Calvinist or Catholic part of the Christian apologetics community, and he's linked to plenty of them, but he doesn't endorse everything they believe/do. So without further evidence, the mere fact that the San Diego board links to Latino organizations with those views doesn't mean they also hold those views.

Besides, the last quote isn't even specifically one side or the other. You can hold to conservative stances on immigration without believing Mexico only sends over rapists and criminals.

[Bill the Cat]

Which means the way Trump has spoken about this is a further testament to his being totally unsuitable to the office of the President. Or any position in which he has any control over anything of consequence. To fall back on the old cliche, would you vote for him for dog catcher?

Trump is not the only Presidential candidate in our history to run his mouth... that does not make him unsuitable for the office. He could do the job just fine.

Therefore the proposition that Trump was complicit in if not actively participating in a conspiracy to defraud people through Trump University is an allegation that should be taken more seriously.

I don't think he knew what was going on, trusted the wrong bozo, and his wounded pride got the best of him. I really don't think he was complicit.

I'd say that Trump can afford it, but I really can't say for sure: he still hasn't released his tax returns.

The audit's not done, so he isn't sure if they are accurate.

I'd rather sit through another 4 years of Obama than Trump's first 100 days.

*shudder* Bite your tongue...

The only thing that could possibly redeem a Trump presidency is an effective Republican Congress that advances its own agenda and won't let him get away with his worst ideas.

I don't think it will be as bad as you guys make it out to be. Consider me cautiously optimistic.

If a wall would be helpful, a man with such contempt for the drug cartels as this judge has would probably like the idea, regardless of what professional associations he belongs to.

It's strange that in his state, there already is a fair chunk of the border covered by the walls.

IMAG0004.JPG
I took that picture

So, I wonder what is his problem with finishing the project... or could it more likely be a partisan issue, and he is acting like a leftist?

Oh, my apologies, I only intended to insult Trump apologists.

Then leave the border enforcers out of it. I'm a wall apologist. I know first hand what it is about and what those manning it say about it. It works, despite the partisan nonsense being shouted from the leftist echo chambers.

If one twentysomething on an obscure corner of the Internet is something border patrol actively has to deal with, they evidently don't have enough work to do.

It's far more than one person, Spart. So many people who know absolutely ZIP about the wall are acting like experts on the subject because they googled some interview or some poll they found. Ignorance influences public opinion far too much on the subject.

There are at least as many reasons to think that this judge personally favors more effective border enforcement than any alternative.

The wall in San Diego is effective.

[Spartacus]

Trump is not the only Presidential candidate in our history to run his mouth... that does not make him unsuitable for the office. He could do the job just fine.

I don't think he knew what was going on, trusted the wrong bozo, and his wounded pride got the best of him. I really don't think he was complicit.

Which means he's the kind of guy we want in charge of the federal bureaucracy

*shudder* Bite your tongue...

In the past 8 years, we've neither nuked anyone nor threatened to nuke anyone. I'm far more certain that Obama would keep that going than I am that Trump would.

It's strange that in his state, there already is a fair chunk of the border covered by the walls.

So, I wonder what is his problem with finishing the project... or could it more likely be a partisan issue, and he is acting like a leftist?

Sorry, I missed the part where you demonstrated that this judge is opposed in any way to the wall.

[Sea of red]

Trump is not the only Presidential candidate in our history to run his mouth... that does not make him unsuitable for the office. He could do the job just fine.





I don't think he knew what was going on, trusted the wrong bozo, and his wounded pride got the best of him. I really don't think he was complicit.




The audit's not done, so he isn't sure if they are accurate.





*shudder* Bite your tongue...



I don't think it will be as bad as you guys make it out to be. Consider me cautiously optimistic.

I can only imagine your mockery if a liberal made such statements about a Democratic candidate with same history.

[Bill the Cat]

Hold it right there, because that's just ridiculous. Donald ABSOLUTELY can do worse than President Obama has. Under Obama's presidency, the world did not end, and the economy slowly improved. Yes, there's still a long way to go, and it's possible that the improvement may not have actually been due to his policies, but nevertheless, that is a positive development.

Please read the context of my claim. We were talking about executive actions. Obama made several atrocious SWEEPING executive actions, and I said Trump couldn't do worse in response to that. So, please do try to keep up, mk?

Donald, on the other hand, is rude, nasty, and boorish to reporters

tumblr_inline_nuwef2G4VH1rkop6x_500.gif

Like O.M. Gee!!! The big meanie!!

and really just about anyone he disagrees with, has advanced clearly imbecilic conspiracy theories (i.e. the Obama birth certificate fiasco), is juvenile and immature in his debates,

beyonce-gasping-gif.gif

What a meanie!!

has shown great enthusiasm for bombing other countries,

To which he'd have absolutely NO authority to order, even if he were at all serious about it.

is endorsed by leaders of the Ku Klux Klan, for crying out loud,

giphy.gif

Big freaking deal! No one controls who endorses them.

has supported dangerous pseudoscientific ideas such as those of vaccines causing autism,

Again, which he would have no power to do anything about.

has proposed unconstitutional ideas such as deporting citizens on the basis of their religion,

Which would never be allowed, so this is a non-issue.

contradicts himself about the wall

You don't know jack squat about the wall either. From what I've seen him say, it's congruent with the data from the border patrol agents themselves.

and other issues more than any other politician I've ever seen,

You listed a whole ONE thing of actual concern and several childish complaints that deserve nothing more than a mocking shocked gif

and has no experience with politics.

CEOs have political experience. The politics involved are just different.

Obama at least had senatorial experience before his presidency.

Obama never ran a company, never made anything other than lemonade, and had no experience as a leader. I'm just glad it's almost over and he can just go away.

Simply put, Donald is not emotionally, intellectually, mentally, or morally fit to serve as president.

Yes he is. If JFK could be President with the wagon load of immoral crap and his mediocre IQ, then Trump can too.

Can you imagine a man that volatile and irrational receiving access to nuclear codes? (Can it with snarky replies insinuating that Obama is such a man, because of all the things one can say about him, "volatile" is not one of them--not nearly as much as Donald, anyways.)

I would say that heaping the term "illegals" among people who primarily just want to make a better life for their families and themselves constitutes "insulting some good people." And it's very disgusting, if you ask me.

Well, you're an idiot, so... They are here illegally, therefore they are "illegal immigrants". I don't care how they want to "better their life". The guy who held up the Wells Fargo Bank in my area yesterday just wanted to "make a better life for him and his family", but guess what? He is a thief. Don't like the label, don't do what the label implies.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they all should be granted amnesty or anything like that. And obviously, the small subset of undocumented immigrants who do set out to commit crime can't be allowed to stay.

They ALL are committing a crime. That's why they are illegal! Stop trying to whitewash the fact that they are intentionally breaking our immigration laws. They are illegal immigrants. They aren't just missing their papers, nor are they simply unaccounted for by the government. They are INTENTIONAL law breakers.

[Bill the Cat]

Right back at you.

Which means he's the kind of guy we want in charge of the federal bureaucracy

Why not? Our POTUS isn't an absolute monarch.

In the past 8 years, we've neither nuked anyone nor threatened to nuke anyone. I'm far more certain that Obama would keep that going than I am that Trump would.

I'm equally confident that neither would. Obama is a pansy, so he doesn't have the TF to threaten anyone. On Trump, I think you are buying too much into the public persona that the media has spoon fed you and are making no effort to learn about the man from those who actually know him.

Sorry, I missed the part where you demonstrated that this judge is opposed in any way to the wall.

You insinuated it when you said "and if border enforcement is largely about stopping the cartels (lololol), then we might even expect this judge to support the wall.". Gave you the benefit of the doubt.

[Bill the Cat]

I can only imagine your mockery if a liberal made such statements about a Democratic candidate with same history.

It'd be your imagination....

[Spartacus]

You insinuated it when you said "and if border enforcement is largely about stopping the cartels (lololol), then we might even expect this judge to support the wall.". Gave you the benefit of the doubt.

I have no idea what the judge's personal views are. I meant that, given the judge's history with the cartels (that is, of being the sort of person a cartel would put a bounty on), the judge would have reasons to support the wall, assuming the wall is an effective measure.

That is, if we want to conjecture from his ethnicity or associations what he thinks about border enforcement, there are at least as many reasons to assume he'd be in favor of an effective wall as there are reasons he might oppose it.

[Bill the Cat]

I have no idea what the judge's personal views are. I meant that, given the judge's history with the cartels (that is, of being the sort of person a cartel would put a bounty on), the judge would have reasons to support the wall, assuming the wall is an effective measure.

It's very effective when it is built and staffed properly. Assistant Chief Henry has evidenced that. It isn't racist to build, despite what race-baiting Texas Rep Vega says either.

That said, I think I need to discontinue my participation in these threads. I'm far too perturbed to go on...

[fm93]

To which he'd have absolutely NO authority to order, even if he were at all serious about it.

You seem to be missing my point. That Donald is so gratuitously rude and boorish to anyone who disagrees with him is evidence that he's ill-suited to deal with disagreement and discord--and where is there more disagreement and discord in our society than in politics? Moreover, he isn't a good person. I would prefer my presidential candidates, regardless of their party affiliation, to at least be good people. Perhaps there is no truly good politician on any side. But with other candidates who at least don't outwardly appear so, there's at least a chance, while with Donald, there is none.

Also, I brought up his conspiracy-mongering to show that he is blatantly irrational and probably paranoid. Those are not traits I want in the leader of my country.

Big freaking deal! No one controls who endorses them.

I disagree entirely. Candidates fully control who endorses their message, because THEY are the ones creating and releasing the message! If an indisputably racist organization that exists entirely to racially terrorize people supports you politically, you have clearly messed up and sent the wrong message. He couldn't even come out and explicitly, immediately condemn the KKK after he heard about the endorsement.

Again, which he would have no power to do anything about.

If he buys into one particular branch of dangerous pseudoscience now, he could easily buy into other branches of dangerous pseudoscience later, and attempt to impose policies that manifest those dangers. If he trusts the anti-vax pseudoscientists as authorities, what's stopping him from appointing other pseudoscientists to positions of power? Even if he doesn't, he's still shown himself to be deeply irrational, and why would you want that in the leader of your country?

Which would never be allowed, so this is a non-issue.

The fact that he is apparently so delusional/ignorant that he thinks he can actually do it, or wants to do it in the first place, or is so dishonest that he boldly claims to be wanting and able to do it doesn't bother you?

You don't know jack squat about the wall either. From what I've seen him say, it's congruent with the data from the border patrol agents themselves.

He has repeatedly given differing physical estimate, time estimate, and financial costs. People can certainly be genuinely mistaken in an estimate and change their minds later, but his reports jump all over the place. This, combined with his utterly ludicrous claim that Mexico will pay for the wall, constitutes strong evidence that he's essentially making it up as he goes along.

You listed a whole ONE thing of actual concern and several childish complaints that deserve nothing more than a mocking shocked gif

I listed several issues of concern that you conflated into "one thing."

CEOs have political experience. The politics involved are just different.

Then I look forward to the day an imam tries to apply for a pastor position at your church by saying "Imams have religious leadership experience. The religions involved are just different." That may technically true, but I doubt you'd ever accept that defense.

Obama never ran a company, never made anything other than lemonade, and had no experience as a leader. I'm just glad it's almost over and he can just go away.

When choosing who I want to navigate social/civil political entities, I will always go with the person who at least has some experience and knowledge instead of a businessman who has none--and especially not a businessman who's had up to four businesses go bankrupt.

Yes he is. If JFK could be President with the wagon load of immoral crap and his mediocre IQ, then Trump can too.

I'm not sure it's fair to say someone who graduated cum laude from Harvard only has a mediocre IQ.

Well, you're an idiot, so... They are here illegally, therefore they are "illegal immigrants".

You could just call them that. I, on the other hand, don't feel comfortable calling people "illegal" in any context, especially in light of the fact that under the One-Child Policy that would've affected my family had my parents given birth to us in China instead of the US, my sister's very existence would've been considered illegal.

I don't care how they want to "better their life". The guy who held up the Wells Fargo Bank in my area yesterday just wanted to "make a better life for him and his family", but guess what? He is a thief. Don't like the label, don't do what the label implies.

I'm not sure that using a deadly weapon to threaten someone into giving you someone else's money is comparable to crossing an arbitrarily-drawn line and working to earn your own money.