Donald Trump Presidential Campaign Thread

[Good_Tidings]

So your issue is the word Raza, and the existence of cognates that don’t translate well into English?

He’s a Federal Judge hearing a fraud case. It was filed in 2014, before Trump started his run for president. Why didn’t Trump cry foul then?

So, 2 years later we start all over because the Judge is hispanic and a member of a Bar Association, and Trump insinuates he cannot be impartial?

If he feels that way about the judge, his lawyers should file a motion for recusal. They haven’t because they can’t make the case. All foam and no beer.

 

[Good_Tidings]

and then there is this:
The Unthinkable Consequences Of Donald Trump’s Racist Attack On A Judge

It’s an extraordinary view on what should require a judge’s recusal. Although federal law does require judges to remove themselves from a case when their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned”, the key word in this law is “reasonably.” Trump is essentially claiming that a famous racist can force a judge off a case simply by expressing support for racist policies. Even setting aside the fact that Trump’s attack on Judge Curiel is only his latest attack on people of Mexican descent, there are obvious reasons why a litigant should not be allowed to decide which judge hears their case.

zhttp://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/06/03/3784482/unthinkable-consequences-donald-trumps-racist-attack-judge/

 

[GaryTaylor]

The legality of the case is interesting but publicly criticizing a judges judicial decisions is every person’s constitutional right.

 

[Ridgerunner]

and then there is this:
The Unthinkable Consequences Of Donald Trump’s Racist Attack On A Judge

It’s an extraordinary view on what should require a judge’s recusal. Although federal law does require judges to remove themselves from a case when their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned”, the key word in this law is “reasonably.” Trump is essentially claiming that a famous racist can force a judge off a case simply by expressing support for racist policies. Even setting aside the fact that Trump’s attack on Judge Curiel is only his latest attack on people of Mexican descent, there are obvious reasons why a litigant should not be allowed to decide which judge hears their case.

zhttp://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/06/03/3784482/unthinkable-consequences-donald-trumps-racist-attack-judge/

It really is a shame that the term “racism” has lost any real meaning in this society. One recalls that simple opposition to Obama brought accusations of “racism”. Enforcing the law in crime-infested communities brings accusations of “racism”. Opposition to illegal immigration brings accusations of “racism”. Americans daring to make Sushi or putting on kimonos are accused of “mini-racism”. Opposition to importation of potential terrorists brings cries of 'racism". Never mind that most of the latter are “white”, it’s still “racism”.

Paraphrasing Shakespeare: “Racism should be made of sterner stuff.”

And yet, if a Hispanics-only social action group or legal group calls itself “The Race”, that’s okay. That’s not racism, despite the name. And it isn’t racism either if a group calls itself “Black Lives Matter” (never mind the brown or the white lives). And it isn’t racism if the government supports the incredible slaughter of unborn black children by an organization whose very founding principle was racism.

Never mind that some 40% of all inmates in federal prisons are immigrants who we are told constitute less than 1% of the population as a whole. Unlimited and illegal immigration can’t be criticized or it’s “racism”. How dare anyone say “Mexico isn’t sending us their best” and further comments that many of them are criminals. (never mind either that a lot of Mexicans are also “white”) It’s “racism” to say this country is a magnet for criminals.

And when did Trump first complain about the judge publicly? When the judge decided to publicly distribute unproven allegations against him in what is highly suggestive of a political act, knowing full well that it would be material useful to the Clinton campaign, which he also supports. And could Judge Curiel have possibly not realized this would make jury selection difficult? By the time this election is over, how many people will NOT have been made aware of one side of it by the Clinton campaign.

Have we really become so gulled that we fail to see in a case like this that which we would object to strenuously if it was done to us? I realize if one simply hates Trump, it’s made difficult to see. But the truth of it is, any one of us would be outraged if this was done to us.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That was a great speech by Mrs. Clinton.

Really, it was a thought out assault, but it was nothing but a assault, what did she say about her foreign policy which was the intention of the speech?

I don’t blame her but imho she should take the time to lay that out “before” the debates starts. Her best position is attacking Trump when her own trust and favorable rating is as bad in fact worse than his. I’m sorry, I fail to see HOW that helps but is what 17 other very good rep candidates did and failed with. Today a few apologized.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The legality of the case is interesting but publicly criticizing a judges judicial decisions is every person’s constitutional right.

It really is fascinating how our mouths are gradually being sewn shut by the progressives. But even more fascinating is how readily and uncritically we accept it.

 

[chero23]

She gave a clear speech but all rhetoric and an obvious attack and as you might say a temper tantrum. It doesn’t require much in return as the truth is Bernies people show just how little integrity and honesty Hillary has in relation to the questions she posed as to being President. No one trusts Hillary. This is the type of situation thats going to be on-going but until they are directly debating then its sort of just feeds a specific narrative.

What policy did she discuss? None the entire talk was an attack, but she has to account for her own actions under direct confrontation and pleading the fifth isn’t a response as President. So the loose canon dangerous rhetoric is a factual reality with her in Libya, Russia, Yemen. Her speech was suppose to be on foreign policy and what did she say? Oh nothing at all?

Kinda like your boy Trump speeches. A lot of finger pointing and name calling but nothing else.

 

[chero23]

Judge Curiel actually belongs to the San Diego La Raza Lawyer’s Association; a lawyer’s association that, among other things, raises scholarships for illegal aliens, and is for Hispanic lawyers only. Put the shoe on the other foot. What if some judge hearing some NAACP case belonged to a “White Lawyer’s Association” that raises money to send illegal aliens back home. Would your defense of that judge be as vigorous if the judge refused to recuse himself? Please pardon my doubting it.

I didn’t make Point #2, but now that you mention it, it’s something that would otherwise be of no importance, but does add at least a trifle to the reasons why this judge didn’t do what most judges would do and wouldn’t do what most judges would do.

I didn’t make Point #3 either. So he’s a Clinton supporter? Didn’t know it. But now that you mention it, perhaps that’s why he allowed disclosure of the untested allegations of the plaintiffs to the public during an election season. But even if that wasn’t his motivation, didn’t he have enough insight to realize it could easily be taken that way, and probably will be, more and more, as time goes on in this? Judges are supposed to protect litigants from publicity in order to ensure objective jurors, if nothing else. Remember all of the big time trials in which it has been so questioned whether a defendant could get a fair trial due to adverse publicity that would infect jurors? Trump’s lawyers asked the judge not to allow public disclosure of all of the untested allegations, but Judge Curiel did it anyway. What was he thinking? And why do we think that was a proper thing for a judge to do, knowing full well he would be poisoning vast numbers of a potential jury pool?

Odd, too, if Judge Curiel is an overt Clinton supporter. Judges in my state are not supposed to engage in political contests at all, other than their own. Maybe it’s okay in California for judges to be open political advocates. If so, they ought to rethink it.

And what makes you think I’m whatever you think “right wing” is? I’m probably to the left of you in some ways. Certainly when it comes to approval of racially exclusive groups, I’m far more of what “liberal” ought to be but oftentimes isn’t.

So in other words, you want a judge that clears trump of any wrong doing?

If a ruling goes against Trump, your going to cry foul like most right wingers?

It’s a straight up yes or no question, no in betweens.

 

[chero23]

The legality of the case is interesting but publicly criticizing a judges judicial decisions is every person’s constitutional right.

For a republican. But if a democrat did it, right wingers would say, “typical liberal media”.

Being very cynical.

 

[Good_Tidings]

It really is a shame that the term “racism” has lost any real meaning in this society. One recalls that simple opposition to Obama brought accusations of “racism”. Enforcing the law in crime-infested communities brings accusations of “racism”. Opposition to illegal immigration brings accusations of “racism”. Americans daring to make Sushi or putting on kimonos are accused of “mini-racism”. Opposition to importation of potential terrorists brings cries of 'racism". Never mind that most of the latter are “white”, it’s still “racism”.

Paraphrasing Shakespeare: “Racism should be made of sterner stuff.”

And yet, if a Hispanics-only social action group or legal group calls itself “The Race”, that’s okay. That’s not racism, despite the name. And it isn’t racism either if a group calls itself “Black Lives Matter” (never mind the brown or the white lives). And it isn’t racism if the government supports the incredible slaughter of unborn black children by an organization whose very founding principle was racism.

Never mind that some 40% of all inmates in federal prisons are immigrants who we are told constitute less than 1% of the population as a whole. Unlimited and illegal immigration can’t be criticized or it’s “racism”. How dare anyone say “Mexico isn’t sending us their best” and further comments that many of them are criminals. (never mind either that a lot of Mexicans are also “white”) It’s “racism” to say this country is a magnet for criminals.

And when did Trump first complain about the judge publicly? When the judge decided to publicly distribute unproven allegations against him in what is highly suggestive of a political act, knowing full well that it would be material useful to the Clinton campaign, which he also supports. And could Judge Curiel have possibly not realized this would make jury selection difficult? By the time this election is over, how many people will NOT have been made aware of one side of it by the Clinton campaign.

Have we really become so gulled that we fail to see in a case like this that which we would object to strenuously if it was done to us? I realize if one simply hates Trump, it’s made difficult to see. But the truth of it is, any one of us would be outraged if this was done to us.

He should take his legal recourse.

 

[chero23]

San Jose last night saw the worst violence of the entire campaign. Several people beaten and bloodied as they tried to leave the convention center and hopefully the videos are going viral. The police are just not doing there job. They need to be cracking heads and getting people jail time, because if they don’t someone is going to get seriously injured very soon.

If I’m the Democratic party. If I’m Clinton, Sanders or Obama I would go on TV and tell these individuals to stop what their doing. (I’m not saying all of these individuals are democrats, some might just be there to start stuff)

Protest is fine. Be like the blacks did in the 60s. That was some powerful protesting.

Burning the US flag, starting fights is not the way to go.

 

[chero23]

That was a great speech by Mrs. Clinton. She very effectively used Mr. Trump’s own words to highlight his nonsensical views. And after the speech Mr. Trump had the audacity to say that she misrepresented his views. No, Mr. Trump, there is video to prove you actually said those things.

You know what the Trump supporters and the right wingers will tell you?

You took his words out of context, you damn liberal twisting things up.

SMH SMH

 

[Ridgerunner]

So in other words, you want a judge that clears trump of any wrong doing?

If a ruling goes against Trump, your going to cry foul like most right wingers?

It’s a straight up yes or no question, no in betweens.

First question: Answer: Of course not. Never said it, either.

Second question: Answer: It can’t be answered yes or no because it’s a compound question and is premised on facts not in evidence. Objection sustained.

Now, let’s answer it the best we can, even so.

If a ruling goes against Trump, I would need to know quite a lot about it before I could reasonably answer it. Nor can I say whether my response would be “like most ‘right wingers’”, not knowing what “most right wingers” subjectively means to you, and not being privy to their thoughts anyway. But if the intended question really is whether I would, in the abstract, disagree with any ruling against Trump no matter what it was, then my answer is:

No. Of course not.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

He should take his legal recourse.

She’s a dirty fighter. But I think Trump can take her on.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You know what the Trump supporters and the right wingers will tell you?

You took his words out of context, you damn liberal twisting things up.

SMH SMH

Actually, I don’t think most conservatives use the “d” word on here. Likely most would think it gratuitous and ill-mannered to do so.

 

[philipl]

So those supporting Trump, answer something and don’t blame the liberal media bc it wasn’t the media it was Trump.

Trump said around a year ago that McCain was not a war hero, "Because I like people who weren’t captured’.

theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/jul/19/donald-trump-john-mccain-not-a-war-hero-video

politico.com/story/2015/07/trump-attacks-mccain-i-like-people-who-werent-captured-120317

If we go by Trump standard, and someone once told me, here on CAF, a Trump supporter btw. That McCain wasn’t a hero and he had the dignity to say, bc Trump laid out reasons what was a hero.

I don’t think Trump has the right to say who is a war hero and who isn’t especially when he himself dodged to join the military.

washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/questions-linger-about-trumps-draft-deferments-during-vietnam-war/2015/07/21/257677bc-2fdd-11e5-8353-1215475949f4_story.html

So how can one support a man like Trump and not believe that the man can change at any moment?

So I shouldnt support Trump because of what he said about McCain?

 

[sallybutler]

Putting aside the issue of the judge, do people believe that Trump University was a legitimate university?

 

[Good_Tidings]

She’s a dirty fighter. But I think Trump can take her on.

Is it a dirty fight when you quote your opponent? Game on!

 

[Good_Tidings]

Putting aside the issue of the judge, do people believe that Trump University was a legitimate university?

In the same way Hamburger U is to McDonalds.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hillary will be avoiding press conferences and debates with Bernie apparently and will prefer long distance Mitt Romney type attacks. Its a good try but ineffective as I see. Its important Trump ignores this very angry crazy lady.