Trump: Dumb, and Wrong, But not "Racist"

[Mr. Friscus]

The drive-by mainstream media has spent the past 2 or 3 days branding Donald Trump "racist" for his remarks on the judge who is ruling on his Trump University court cases.

Here are my thoughts:

1. My, how watered-down the term "racist" has become.

2. Trump is Wrong, as the judge is from Indiana, and isn't "Mexican", although he could be correct in identifying a carry over of culture which might influencing decisions. However, that would have nothing to do with race. There's no such thing as a "Mexican race".

3. Trump is dumb to go after this guy regardless. There's simply no point. Trump claims he's getting unfair rulings, and he might be, I don't know the specifics. It's not out in left field to think that a judge with a strong Mexican heritage could not be a fan of America enforcing its border laws for the betterment of Mexicans who wish to illegally get into America. I mean, academia and much of liberal-land has already branded anyone who wishes to enforce the border law as "racist", which is quite the conundrum they can't begin to explain.

However, these are your own personal dealings. You don't see Hillary initiating any sort of reference to her scandal with her E-mail server. I mean, we just found out she's been lying quite a bit (she knew there were attempts to hack her server but denied there were or she knew), but at least she has the political savvy to make others grill her (a rarity when it comes to Mainstream media liberal "journalism").

We can call Trump dumb and wrong all we want, but the cliche liberal attack of racism doesn't fit here. Bringing up possible cultural influences isn't "racism", even if it, again, isn't smart.

Trump should know how liberal the media is, and how they won't hesitate to drive-by his image.

 

[Sickofleft]

The drive-by mainstream media has spent the past 2 or 3 days branding Donald Trump "racist" for his remarks on the judge who is ruling on his Trump University court cases.

Here are my thoughts:

1. My, how watered-down the term "racist" has become.

2. Trump is Wrong, as the judge is from Indiana, and isn't "Mexican", although he could be correct in identifying a carry over of culture which might influencing decisions. However, that would have nothing to do with race. There's no such thing as a "Mexican race".

3. Trump is dumb to go after this guy regardless. There's simply no point. Trump claims he's getting unfair rulings, and he might be, I don't know the specifics. It's not out in left field to think that a judge with a strong Mexican heritage could not be a fan of America enforcing its border laws for the betterment of Mexicans who wish to illegally get into America. I mean, academia and much of liberal-land has already branded anyone who wishes to enforce the border law as "racist", which is quite the conundrum they can't begin to explain.

However, these are your own personal dealings. You don't see Hillary initiating any sort of reference to her scandal with her E-mail server. I mean, we just found out she's been lying quite a bit (she knew there were attempts to hack her server but denied there were or she knew), but at least she has the political savvy to make others grill her (a rarity when it comes to Mainstream media liberal "journalism").

We can call Trump dumb and wrong all we want, but the cliche liberal attack of racism doesn't fit here. Bringing up possible cultural influences isn't "racism", even if it, again, isn't smart.

Trump should know how liberal the media is, and how they won't hesitate to drive-by his image.

Trump frankly is too self centered to be a racist, in order to be a racist you would have to give thought to someone, something, a group etc........ other then yourself. With the exception of maybe when it comes to his kids, I think Trump is perfectly incapable of this.

 

[marvin martian]

"Mexican" isn't a race, it's a nationality.

 

[Jen]

The drive-by mainstream media has spent the past 2 or 3 days branding Donald Trump "racist" for his remarks on the judge who is ruling on his Trump University court cases.

Here are my thoughts:

1. My, how watered-down the term "racist" has become.

2. Trump is Wrong, as the judge is from Indiana, and isn't "Mexican", although he could be correct in identifying a carry over of culture which might influencing decisions. However, that would have nothing to do with race. There's no such thing as a "Mexican race".

3. Trump is dumb to go after this guy regardless. There's simply no point. Trump claims he's getting unfair rulings, and he might be, I don't know the specifics. It's not out in left field to think that a judge with a strong Mexican heritage could not be a fan of America enforcing its border laws for the betterment of Mexicans who wish to illegally get into America. I mean, academia and much of liberal-land has already branded anyone who wishes to enforce the border law as "racist", which is quite the conundrum they can't begin to explain.

However, these are your own personal dealings. You don't see Hillary initiating any sort of reference to her scandal with her E-mail server. I mean, we just found out she's been lying quite a bit (she knew there were attempts to hack her server but denied there were or she knew), but at least she has the political savvy to make others grill her (a rarity when it comes to Mainstream media liberal "journalism").

We can call Trump dumb and wrong all we want, but the cliche liberal attack of racism doesn't fit here. Bringing up possible cultural influences isn't "racism", even if it, again, isn't smart.

Trump should know how liberal the media is, and how they won't hesitate to drive-by his image.

Trump dumb?
I disagree.
If there were a sitting judge who was a member of the KKK or some KKK offshoot and he was put to the task of adjudicating a case where Barack Obama was the defendant, how many people would call for that judge to step back and recuse himself?

Since Trump wants to limit access to the USA from the southern border by building a fence and since the judge in question is in some sort of relationship with a pro-Latino group...... shouldn't that amount to the same thing? Shouldn't that judge recuse himself?

Trump's words may be a little crude as compared to scripted politicians, but he is right in what he says.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said Trump's remarks are
"the textbook definition of a racist comment."

as you can tell, Ryan isn't a "poorly educated" Trump supporter.

 

[BobbyT]

Trump dumb?
I disagree.
If there were a sitting judge who was a member of the KKK or some KKK offshoot and he was put to the task of adjudicating a case where Barack Obama was the defendant, how many people would call for that judge to step back and recuse himself?

Since Trump wants to limit access to the USA from the southern border by building a fence and since the judge in question is in some sort of relationship with a pro-Latino group...... shouldn't that amount to the same thing? Shouldn't that judge recuse himself?

Trump's words may be a little crude as compared to scripted politicians, but he is right in what he says.

Judges have a standard of impartiality. Is there any evidence this judge has not been impartial? Have Trumps attorneys requested he recuse himself on the basis of not being impartial?

Should judges who are affiliated with right wing organizations, such as the Republican party, recuse themselves from cases involving citizens known to belong to the Democratic Party or vice versa? Should judges who attended an historically black college recuse themselves from cases about white on black hate crimes? Should a woman judge who volunteered for the rape crises center recuse herself from rape cases? Should a judge who is a member of the Catholic Church recuse himself from a case involving a Catholic priest as defendant? If any of the answers are yes we don't need a requirement for judicial impartiality, we need thousands more judges to fit every niche category.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

Judges have a standard of impartiality. Is there any evidence this judge has not been impartial? Have Trumps attorneys requested he recuse himself on the basis of not being impartial?

Should judges who are affiliated with right wing organizations, such as the Republican party, recuse themselves from cases involving citizens known to belong to the Democratic Party or vice versa? Should judges who attended an historically black college recuse themselves from cases about white on black hate crimes? Should a woman judge who volunteered for the rape crises center recuse herself from rape cases? Should a judge who is a member of the Catholic Church recuse himself from a case involving a Catholic priest as defendant? If any of the answers are yes we don't need a requirement for judicial impartiality, we need thousands more judges to fit every niche category.

So when a black says they don't get a fair trial because of an all white jury and white Judge is all bull shitI'm sure you'll agree since you think judges are impartial.

 

[BobbyT]

So when a black says they don't get a fair trial because of an all white jury and white Judge is all bull shitI'm sure you'll agree since you think judges are impartial.

The person can say anything they want. The case would be reviewed if there's a legal argument his lawyers can make that substantiates the claim. Have Trumps attorneys asked for the judge to recuse himself?

 

[ObamacareForever]

I remember when Bill Clinton was president and under investigation and part of his defense was "it depends on what the definition of is is" Republicans are doing to same thing as they mince words and try to somehow how find a definition of racist that doesn't include Trump. I pity them, they are angry that Obama hasn't destroyed the country the way they had hoped, and now they are so desperate they are lying to themselves. Face the facts, Trump's clearly a racist, the republican party acknowledged it.

 

[Boca]

"Mexican" isn't a race, it's a nationality.

Exactly!

That's also exactly why very smart people like Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and Lindsey Graham are outing themselves as frauds.

They know there was absolutely nothing racist about Trump's comment about the judge but it didn't stop them from jumping on the wagon.

Filthy collaborators, deathly afraid of a Trump Department of Justice ...that's all.

 

[Jen]

Judges have a standard of impartiality. Is there any evidence this judge has not been impartial? Have Trumps attorneys requested he recuse himself on the basis of not being impartial?

Should judges who are affiliated with right wing organizations, such as the Republican party, recuse themselves from cases involving citizens known to belong to the Democratic Party or vice versa? Should judges who attended an historically black college recuse themselves from cases about white on black hate crimes? Should a woman judge who volunteered for the rape crises center recuse herself from rape cases? Should a judge who is a member of the Catholic Church recuse himself from a case involving a Catholic priest as defendant? If any of the answers are yes we don't need a requirement for judicial impartiality, we need thousands more judges to fit every niche category.

Judges recuse themselves if there is a real or perceived conflict of interests. The judge might be perfectly able to be impartial, but if there is any sort of perceived conflict of interest it is wise to recuse. That keeps things from coming back to bite that judge later. It's an appropriate choice to make sometimes. It doesn't mean anyone is wrong, is about to be wrong or is bad or is about to be bad. It just removes any possible perception of that sort of thing. Surely you can understand what I am saying here. If not, then meh...

 

[BobbyT]

Judges recuse themselves if there is a real or perceived conflict of interests. The judge might be perfectly able to be impartial, but if there is any sort of perceived conflict of interest it is wise to recuse. That keeps things from coming back to bite that judge later. It's an appropriate choice to make sometimes. It doesn't mean anyone is wrong, is about to be wrong or is bad or is about to be bad. It just removes any possible perception of that sort of thing. Surely you can understand what I am saying here. If not, then meh...

What is the perceived conflict of interest? This judge has presided over drug cartel cases, so he clearly isn't in favor of hispanics no matter what. So do you think every defendant should be able to use any excuse to 'perceive' conflict of interest? Through judge after judge? Or do you think there should be some actual, provable, reason? Again, have Trump's attorneys asked the judge to recuse himself? If not, why not?

 

[BobbyT]

Exactly!

That's also exactly why very smart people like Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and Lindsey Graham are outing themselves as frauds.

They know there was absolutely nothing racist about Trump's comment about the judge but it didn't stop them from jumping on the wagon.

Filthy collaborators, deathly afraid of a Trump Department of Justice ...that's all.

Race is a false categorization. It is a social, not biological, construct. But Trump's declaration that a judge cannot be impartial because of his ancestral country of origin, or religion, is bigoted. If there is evidence the judge has actually failed in his requirement to be impartial, Trump should present it. Absent that, he has no argument against this or any judge. He is vying to be president of the United States and all its citizens, hispanic and Muslim included.

 

[Jen]

What is the perceived conflict of interest? This judge has presided over drug cartel cases, so he clearly isn't in favor of hispanics no matter what. So do you think every defendant should be able to use any excuse to 'perceive' conflict of interest? Through judge after judge? Or do you think there should be some actual, provable, reason? Again, have Trump's attorneys asked the judge to recuse himself? If not, why not?

I am not going to get into a circular argument with you where you personally attack me if your argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny, Bobby. It's Trump's allegation that there is conflict of interest. It's the Left's comeback to attack and scream racist. It's a weak comeback but I don't want to be subjected to it.

 

[BobbyT]

I am not going to get into a circular argument with you where you personally attack me if your argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny, Bobby. It's Trump's allegation that there is conflict of interest. It's the Left's comeback to attack and scream racist. It's a weak comeback but I don't want to be subjected to it.

Did I personally attack you? Did I scream racist? No to both. I asked reasonable questions. Should any defendant be able to claim perception of bias at any time without evidence and have any judge recused? Once again, have Trump's attorneys requested the judge recuse himself? That would be the legal avenue to take. If they have not, why not?

 

[Jen]

Did I personally attack you? Did I scream racist? No to both. I asked reasonable questions. Should any defendant be able to claim perception of bias at any time without evidence and have any judge recused? Once again, have Trump's attorneys requested the judge recuse himself? That would be the legal avenue to take. If they have not, why not?

You have in the past.
I"m not taking the bait.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

The drive-by mainstream media has spent the past 2 or 3 days branding Donald Trump "racist" for his remarks on the judge who is ruling on his Trump University court cases.

Here are my thoughts:

1. My, how watered-down the term "racist" has become.

2. Trump is Wrong, as the judge is from Indiana, and isn't "Mexican", although he could be correct in identifying a carry over of culture which might influencing decisions. However, that would have nothing to do with race. There's no such thing as a "Mexican race".

3. Trump is dumb to go after this guy regardless. There's simply no point. Trump claims he's getting unfair rulings, and he might be, I don't know the specifics. It's not out in left field to think that a judge with a strong Mexican heritage could not be a fan of America enforcing its border laws for the betterment of Mexicans who wish to illegally get into America. I mean, academia and much of liberal-land has already branded anyone who wishes to enforce the border law as "racist", which is quite the conundrum they can't begin to explain.

However, these are your own personal dealings. You don't see Hillary initiating any sort of reference to her scandal with her E-mail server. I mean, we just found out she's been lying quite a bit (she knew there were attempts to hack her server but denied there were or she knew), but at least she has the political savvy to make others grill her (a rarity when it comes to Mainstream media liberal "journalism").

We can call Trump dumb and wrong all we want, but the cliche liberal attack of racism doesn't fit here. Bringing up possible cultural influences isn't "racism", even if it, again, isn't smart.

Trump should know how liberal the media is, and how they won't hesitate to drive-by his image.

You claim only "the media" say Trump's comment was racist.

The reality, of course, is that GOP leaders like Paul Ryan have said the same thing.

 

[Jen]

You claim only "the media" say Trump's comment was racist.

The reality, of course, is that GOP leaders like Paul Ryan have said the same thing.

It's nothing.
It's gone.
Trump has the right to his opinion just like any other American citizen. This opinion didn't lose lives like Benghazi did.

So it's gone.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

It's nothing.
It's gone.
Trump has the right to his opinion just like any other American citizen. This opinion didn't lose lives like Benghazi did.

So it's gone.

Gone?

Yer dreamin'

 

[BobbyT]

You have in the past.
I"m not taking the bait.

Can you say whether Trump's attorneys have requested the judge recuse himself? I can. They have not. Therefore Trump's claims of conflict of interest are not based in fact. A defendant doesn't get to try his case in the court of public opinion, it has to go through the legal process. Claiming a judge is not impartial is part of that legal process. Trump's attorneys have not availed themselves of that option. So what do you presume is the basis for Trump's claim other than bigotry? And if Trump is a bigot, how do you justify continuing to support him?