Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he has more of an argument that this judge is a member of La Raza Lawyers Group and that he oversaw a scholarship to an undocumented student.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/01/judge-presiding-over-trump-university-case-is-member-of-la-raza-lawyers-group/

Trump was probably never good at logic and so are you.

Yet the PP and Trump have a huge point, given the La Raza connection.

Are you suggesting that a federal judge who oversaw a scholarship committee which funded one (out of seven) student who identified himself as "undocumented" would be biased against Trump because Trump is "building wall"? In that case most judges will be biased against a lot of the cases they have. That is not how judicial system works - please educate yourself. What is more reasonable is that Trump is creating this personal feud (in preparation of a future appeal) and if the judge responds (I hope he is smart enough to not respond) it is possible that he would site this feud during the appeal.

I am suggesting that a federal judge who picks and chooses which laws he wants to uphold is not a good judge.

Explain me how he picks and chooses which laws he wants to uphold?

Seriously ? An undocumented person is here illegally. He not only didn't enforce immigration law, he rewarded the illegal status with a scholarship.

So the judge should have sent the student to jail or would have deported when the student applied for scholarship, like how? Do you know that many undocumented students in this country get scholarship - even from places like Harvard? You seem to be totally confused about the roles or responsibility of a judge and the judges other roles outside his job. Please educate yourself. Your hatred is clouding your judgement.

And it's illegal. The judge knows this. And rewarded the behavior. Trump is right. Biased

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am surprised I didn't see a thread about this interview, feel free to flag if this is redundant but that Jake Tapper interview yesterday finally exemplified Trump's steadfast obfuscation. He never answers questions yet no journalist has taken him to task, until yesterday. Jake Tapper has the patience of a saint and I have so much respect for him. I can't believe CNN did something right but they actually have a real journalist on staff finally. He asks Donald 23 times if his criticism of Judge Gonzalo Curiel was racist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/03/jake-tapper-asked-donald-trump-if-his-judge-attack-was-racist-then-followed-up-23-times/

23 time...but there's no agenda. OLOLOL

There is no agenda until the interview exceeds 11 hours.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he has more of an argument that this judge is a member of La Raza Lawyers Group and that he oversaw a scholarship to an undocumented student.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/01/judge-presiding-over-trump-university-case-is-member-of-la-raza-lawyers-group/

Trump was probably never good at logic and so are you.

Yet the PP and Trump have a huge point, given the La Raza connection.

Are you suggesting that a federal judge who oversaw a scholarship committee which funded one (out of seven) student who identified himself as "undocumented" would be biased against Trump because Trump is "building wall"? In that case most judges will be biased against a lot of the cases they have. That is not how judicial system works - please educate yourself. What is more reasonable is that Trump is creating this personal feud (in preparation of a future appeal) and if the judge responds (I hope he is smart enough to not respond) it is possible that he would site this feud during the appeal.

I am suggesting that a federal judge who picks and chooses which laws he wants to uphold is not a good judge.

Explain me how he picks and chooses which laws he wants to uphold?

Seriously ? An undocumented person is here illegally. He not only didn't enforce immigration law, he rewarded the illegal status with a scholarship.

So the judge should have sent the student to jail or would have deported when the student applied for scholarship, like how? Do you know that many undocumented students in this country get scholarship - even from places like Harvard? You seem to be totally confused about the roles or responsibility of a judge and the judges other roles outside his job. Please educate yourself. Your hatred is clouding your judgement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am surprised I didn't see a thread about this interview, feel free to flag if this is redundant but that Jake Tapper interview yesterday finally exemplified Trump's steadfast obfuscation. He never answers questions yet no journalist has taken him to task, until yesterday. Jake Tapper has the patience of a saint and I have so much respect for him. I can't believe CNN did something right but they actually have a real journalist on staff finally. He asks Donald 23 times if his criticism of Judge Gonzalo Curiel was racist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/03/jake-tapper-asked-donald-trump-if-his-judge-attack-was-racist-then-followed-up-23-times/

23 time...but there's no agenda. OLOLOL

There is no agenda until the interview exceeds 11 hours.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he has more of an argument that this judge is a member of La Raza Lawyers Group and that he oversaw a scholarship to an undocumented student.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/01/judge-presiding-over-trump-university-case-is-member-of-la-raza-lawyers-group/

Trump was probably never good at logic and so are you.

Yet the PP and Trump have a huge point, given the La Raza connection.

Are you suggesting that a federal judge who oversaw a scholarship committee which funded one (out of seven) student who identified himself as "undocumented" would be biased against Trump because Trump is "building wall"? In that case most judges will be biased against a lot of the cases they have. That is not how judicial system works - please educate yourself. What is more reasonable is that Trump is creating this personal feud (in preparation of a future appeal) and if the judge responds (I hope he is smart enough to not respond) it is possible that he would site this feud during the appeal.

I am suggesting that a federal judge who picks and chooses which laws he wants to uphold is not a good judge.

Explain me how he picks and chooses which laws he wants to uphold?

Seriously ? An undocumented person is here illegally. He not only didn't enforce immigration law, he rewarded the illegal status with a scholarship.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm listening right now to Stacy Dash talk about how we will never be integrated if there are these types of organizations. She's correct. Did he, or did he oversee the scholarship for an undocumented immigrant? That's a problem.

Well, if Stacey Dash says so...

Hey! I generally get all of my serious political commentary from Stacey Dash.

Why a gif of Gabrielle Union?

It was a whole thing a couple months ago- (I'm considering this to be the dead end of the Dash posts in this thread, despite contributing to it

“Who’s Stacey Dash?”

That’s the question actress Gabrielle Union asked an Associated Press reporter this week, following the Sundance Film Festival premiere of The Birth of a Nation, in which Union has a supporting role.

“Is she like related to Dame Dash? Was she on Roc-A-Fella?” Union joked. “I heard of a crazy lady once, but I don’t know what her name is.”

Union was asked about Dash’s recent comments on the lack of diversity at this year’s Oscars and the outcry from celebrities like Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett Smith, neither of whom will attend the ceremony. “I think it’s ludicrous because we have to make up our minds,” Dash said on Fox News last week. “Either we want to have segregation or integration, and if we don’t want segregation, then we need to get rid of channels like BET and the BET Awards and the Image Awards, where you’re only awarded if you’re black. If it were the other way around, we’d be up in arms. It’s a double standard.” The former Clueless star added “there shouldn’t be a Black History Month. We’re Americans, period. That’s it.”

Thing is, given his history, one couldn't accuse Judge Curiel of racially motivated bias against any other defendant. For that matter it would be a stretch to make a generic across the board statement about bias by Hispanic or Muslim judges as Trump did.

The only variable in play here is Trump - who's set himself up as a potential target for bias because he's been so caustic toward Hispanics and Muslims.

If Trump weren't such a vicious ass none of this would even be getting discussed today.

It's not about the judge. It's about Trump.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am surprised I didn't see a thread about this interview, feel free to flag if this is redundant but that Jake Tapper interview yesterday finally exemplified Trump's steadfast obfuscation. He never answers questions yet no journalist has taken him to task, until yesterday. Jake Tapper has the patience of a saint and I have so much respect for him. I can't believe CNN did something right but they actually have a real journalist on staff finally. He asks Donald 23 times if his criticism of Judge Gonzalo Curiel was racist.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/03/jake-tapper-asked-donald-trump-if-his-judge-attack-was-racist-then-followed-up-23-times/

23 time...but there's no agenda. OLOLOL

Because Jake didn't get the answer he was looking for. It's the same as Chris Matthews asking him about abortion. Trump's first answer was "some Republicans are in agreement of some sort of punishment ..." Clearly Trump didn't put himself in that camp. But no that's not the correct answer. He had to ask repeatedly until Trump caved in and said yes.

These gotcha "journalism" won't work this year because most people don't believe the media anymore. Even congress has higher approval than the media.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm listening right now to Stacy Dash talk about how we will never be integrated if there are these types of organizations. She's correct. Did he, or did he oversee the scholarship for an undocumented immigrant? That's a problem.

Well, if Stacey Dash says so...

Hey! I generally get all of my serious political commentary from Stacey Dash.

Why a gif of Gabrielle Union?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm listening right now to Stacy Dash talk about how we will never be integrated if there are these types of organizations. She's correct. Did he, or did he oversee the scholarship for an undocumented immigrant? That's a problem.

Well, if Stacey Dash says so...

Hey! I generally get all of my serious political commentary from Stacey Dash.

I'm guessing that because of Trump's statements about Mexicans and the high profile nature of the case, the judge would have bent over backwards to not appear biased and give trump grounds for appeals. Judges never want to have an appearance of bias that will undermine a verdict. But this is Trump in action, so if you are not an avid supporter, you are biased and should be crushed, and when he becomes president, there will be no Mexican judges, or Muslim ones, and the PGA will be required to use his golf courses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he has more of an argument that this judge is a member of La Raza Lawyers Group and that he oversaw a scholarship to an undocumented student.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/01/judge-presiding-over-trump-university-case-is-member-of-la-raza-lawyers-group/

Trump was probably never good at logic and so are you.

Yet the PP and Trump have a huge point, given the La Raza connection.

I think you're confusing the La Raza professional society with the activist group. Red State points out the issue:

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/06/03/dishonest-attempt-associate-gonzalo-curiel-la-raza/

As a first generation American, it is beyond offensive to me that a Presidential nominee would suggest my parents' country of origin would impact my allegiance to the US, including its laws. If you don't see how this is the exact same type of racism that led to the Japanese internment during WWII, out country is in a very sad state.

I'm listening right now to Stacy Dash talk about how we will never be integrated if there are these types of organizations. She's correct. Did he, or did he oversee the scholarship for an undocumented immigrant? That's a problem.

1. Trump did not say that the problem was the lawyers org, he said it was that the judge is Mexican. This is making excuses.
2. The lawyers org is not a militant org, its a place to give support, network, and do good work. There are lots of ethnic orgs in American society, Irish, Catholic, Jewish, etc.
3. When the group was first brought up, the scholarships were not mentioned - again after the fact excuse making.
4. This simply does not stand up legally. The bar to disqualify a judge is high. What this does show is that if you are creating a problem for Trump, he will use whatever he can against you. Including your gender, religion, or ethnicity. Even Newt Gingrich realizes there is a problem.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm listening right now to Stacy Dash talk about how we will never be integrated if there are these types of organizations. She's correct. Did he, or did he oversee the scholarship for an undocumented immigrant? That's a problem.

Well, if Stacey Dash says so...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he has more of an argument that this judge is a member of La Raza Lawyers Group and that he oversaw a scholarship to an undocumented student.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/01/judge-presiding-over-trump-university-case-is-member-of-la-raza-lawyers-group/

Trump was probably never good at logic and so are you.

Yet the PP and Trump have a huge point, given the La Raza connection.

Are you suggesting that a federal judge who oversaw a scholarship committee which funded one (out of seven) student who identified himself as "undocumented" would be biased against Trump because Trump is "building wall"? In that case most judges will be biased against a lot of the cases they have. That is not how judicial system works - please educate yourself. What is more reasonable is that Trump is creating this personal feud (in preparation of a future appeal) and if the judge responds (I hope he is smart enough to not respond) it is possible that he would site this feud during the appeal.

I am suggesting that a federal judge who picks and chooses which laws he wants to uphold is not a good judge.

Explain me how he picks and chooses which laws he wants to uphold?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny, I'm not a Trump supporter and I do think he's racist, but I think he did great in this interview. He was saying you can't have a thin skin and be as successful as he's been in different areas. He said the judge is being unfair to him because he's Of "Mexican heritage" and is probably against building a wall and doesn't like Trump or his politics. That's probably true. Tapper was trying to say "you're being racist because you're saying he's Mexican and can't do a good job because he's Mexican." Trump argued against that. He's not saying he's a bad judge because Mexican, but because he's being biased and not looking at the case in and of itself.

Wow - do you even realize you just made the exact same racist assumption Trump has? "The judge is of Mexican decent therefore he is bias against Trump."

By that logic, every white male judge should be recused from any case involving anyone of color and all women.

Lawyers do it all the time in jury selections. You can't say race is not a factor anymore in people's opinions. It's reasonable to believe that this judge is biased against him.

Actually, they are not allowed to bar a juror because of race. They get around the race issue because they are allowed a certain number of exemptions without giving a reason. But they can't just say, "I object to this juror because he or she is Mexican."

Trump is being Trump. He is not PC. What do you think about the OJ's jury selection and the verdict? No politician in this country will come out and say race played a role there. But we all know it's true.

Politicians generally don't comment on jury decisions. But the issue of race, including the race of the jury was widely reported in the media. However, no-one objected to the fact that the judge was of japanese ancestry and therefore would be biased towards defendants of other minorities.