• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Exclusive: Senator Warren to endorse Clinton, sources say

That is right. It has "zero bearing" and anyone who thinks it does is wrong. that's how out of touch with reality you really are. Racism is no longer tolerated in America, even Paul Ryan agrees. I might be time to pack up the computer and take up golf or fishing, it is a lot more relaxing than this.


Denial of what is real...a classic liberal position.

If it has zero bearing, then why is the floor littered with race cards that were thrown all over the place by liberals claiming racism.

You hear it a hundred times a day from liberals. They have a vested interest in keeping it alive. Al Sharpton makes his money from that alone.

You are hypocritical if you think liberals would just "let it go" if a judge in a black man's case had both parents in the clan. They would be all over it.

Racism is alive and well because liberals do not want it to die. It supports their victim mentality.

That is also why the floor is littered with race cards. So much it has lost all effectiveness and meaning.

Everything they disagree with is racist, according to them.

PS...YOU are the one who is actually fishing. and badly, I might add.
 
Denial of what is real...a classic liberal position.

If it has zero bearing, then why is the floor littered with race cards that were thrown all over the place by liberals claiming racism.

You hear it a hundred times a day from liberals. They have a vested interest in keeping it alive. Al Sharpton makes his money from that alone.

You are hypocritical if you think liberals would just "let it go" if a judge in a black man's case had both parents in the clan. They would be all over it.

Racism is alive and well because liberals do not want it to die. It supports their victim mentality.

That is also why the floor is littered with race cards. So much it has lost all effectiveness and meaning.

Everything they disagree with is racist, according to them.

PS...YOU are the one who is actually fishing. and badly, I might add.

Like I said liberals like Paul Ryan agree, Trump's statement was the definition of racism. Those damn liberals are everywhere now, and you are now out there all by your lonesome. What are you to do? Sure you don't want to play a few holes?

Paul Ryan rips Donald Trump remarks as 'textbook definition of racist comment' - CNNPolitics.com
 
That is right. It has "zero bearing" and anyone who thinks it does is wrong. that's how out of touch with reality you really are. Racism is no longer tolerated in America, even Paul Ryan agrees. I might be time to pack up the computer and take up golf or fishing, it is a lot more relaxing than this.

You can't really be serious right? Trump has been blasted in the media for people like David Duke supporting him. And you don't think that a judge who has connections to the KKK would face problems if he was the judge on a case where the person was black or any other minority?

I agree Trump's statements were poor at the very least. I honestly think this is another one of his moments where he says something incorrectly and of course the media jumps onto it, like they would with any other Republican. Is the judge in favor of illegal immigrants being afforded rights and benefits from America? Yes. Is he a member of a group that is associated with a far left/take America back group? Yes. Does Trump propose subjects that many illegal immigrants/ legal immigrants feel strongly against? Yes. Can you honestly say that there is no grounds for bias?

Trump did it the wrong way. I think he misspoke. He should not have done this in public most likely. And at most he should've stated that there was cause to question the judges unbiased opinion given the fact that he is a member of a group that awards illegal immigrants and a group that associates with the far left group that is blatantly about reclaiming America for the Mexican people. Simply because he is of Mexican herritage? No, that is a stupid statement and only hurts his case.
 
That lie doesen't sell anymore. All the dopes that might buy it already did and are more the fools for it.

What doesn't sell anymore is you and other posters like you accusing people of lying whenever they make statements that happen to peeve you. I understand why people who share your views rely so heavily on that uncivil stratagem. Calling someone a liar is a lame, dopey substitute for a legitimate rebuttal, which would require knowledge and an ability to make persuasive arguments that people who share your views don't have.

Pocohontas Warren falsified her Indian heritage to help her chances of being admitted to law school. Like her fellow leftist Mrs. B.J. Clinton, she is a damned liar--as crooked as a dog's hind leg. But that is only fitting, because so are many of their supporters.
 
:eek:t
What if a black man was under trial and the judge's parents used to be card carrying, cross burning KKK members.

The liberal press would be all over it screaming BIAS.

This judge gives free legal aid to illegals and is a member of La Raza, and yet some dim witts are saying it has ZERO bearing?...:bs

First off, analogizing a hispanic group of attorneys and judges to the ****ing KKK is a really unique combination of simplistic and moronic.

Second, being part of a group is EXTREMELY unlikely to be enough evidence to show bias because you still have to give me a reason why this judge's association with that group means that the judge is biased against one of the parties in a specific case. In other words, you are using a generalized association to try and prove something specific about one person as it relates to one case. Could it be enough like in your idiotic analogy of a "card carrying, cross burning" KKK member presiding over a black defendant? Sure. Do we have that here? **** no.

Third, Trump didn't start his attack by referencing this (weak ass) association. He started and explicitly made it because the guy was Mexican (even though he was born in Indiana). If I had to guess, it was the Trumpets that discovered the judge's association and told Trump in an effort to further legitimize their bosses' bigotry.
 
Nothing has or will stand in our way in the quest for true liberty and freedom. The new Bill of Rights (also called the 2nd Bill of Rights)that follow defines that freedom that all Americans are entitled to.
See if you can tell me how many we have fulfilled so far.

See if you can brief even one of those sophomoric demands in a way that would cut any ice in court. Considering the fact that Franklin Roosevelt and his acolytes have had eighty years to try to amend the Constitution by fiat and still have yet to do it, I won't hold my breath. In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy the personal freedoms the Constitution--the real one, and not the one of leftist pipe dreams--already guarantees us as Americans.
 
They are also 2 people that will be effecting your life in meaningful ways for the next decade or so so keep up the name calling. It will make it even more painful for you to bear.

I think you meant to say "affecting your life," etc. Whenever I see fit, I will continue to call out those two harridans and others like them for just what they are--damned statist liars. I doubt it will cause me any pain.
 
What doesn't sell anymore is you and other posters like you accusing people of lying whenever they make statements that happen to peeve you. I understand why people who share your views rely so heavily on that uncivil stratagem. Calling someone a liar is a lame, dopey substitute for a legitimate rebuttal, which would require knowledge and an ability to make persuasive arguments that people who share your views don't have.

Pocohontas Warren falsified her Indian heritage to help her chances of being admitted to law school. Like her fellow leftist Mrs. B.J. Clinton, she is a damned liar--as crooked as a dog's hind leg. But that is only fitting, because so are many of their supporters.

Which is why you have all this evidence in your post instead of just rambling BS. Oh wait... you don't. Breitbart is calling.

The funny thing is, if repeating this garbage is all you got on her politically, you got nothing. And that seems to chaffe your arse.
 
You can't really be serious right? Trump has been blasted in the media for people like David Duke supporting him. And you don't think that a judge who has connections to the KKK would face problems if he was the judge on a case where the person was black or any other minority?

I agree Trump's statements were poor at the very least. I honestly think this is another one of his moments where he says something incorrectly and of course the media jumps onto it, like they would with any other Republican. Is the judge in favor of illegal immigrants being afforded rights and benefits from America? Yes. Is he a member of a group that is associated with a far left/take America back group? Yes. Does Trump propose subjects that many illegal immigrants/ legal immigrants feel strongly against? Yes. Can you honestly say that there is no grounds for bias?

Trump did it the wrong way. I think he misspoke. He should not have done this in public most likely. And at most he should've stated that there was cause to question the judges unbiased opinion given the fact that he is a member of a group that awards illegal immigrants and a group that associates with the far left group that is blatantly about reclaiming America for the Mexican people. Simply because he is of Mexican herritage? No, that is a stupid statement and only hurts his case.

You are perpetrating a lie and are no better than Trump if you don't apologize for it There is no evidence of bias on the judges part and before you start with the partisan rhetoric again please address Paul Ryan's comments. Paul Ryan rips Donald Trump remarks as 'textbook definition of racist comment' - CNNPolitics.com

As The Post and other media outlets have pointed out repeatedly, Curiel is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, which is a professional organization for Latino lawyers. The group is the San Diego local affiliate of the California La Raza Lawyers Association, whose membership comprises lawyers practicing in California, and is a 501(c)(6) nonprofit trade organization. It has an affiliated 501(c)(3) scholarship fund that awarded 22 scholarships totaling $34,000 in 2014. More on that later.

This group is not the National Council of La Raza, the Hispanic civil rights nonprofit organization that has pushed for comprehensive immigration reform in Congress with a pathway to citizenship and legalization for undocumented immigrants. It’s often referred to as simply “La Raza,” especially in the context of the immigration debate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/07/trump-supporters-false-claim-that-trump-u-judge-is-a-member-of-a-pro-immigrant-group/
To recap this simple fact: San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association ≠ National Council of La Raza.
 
The hero worshipping of Senator Warren has always confounded me.

she's a flaming hypocritical bitch who is incredibly overpaid while whining about corporate CEOs being overpaid

she's the poster turd for the "DO as I SAY not as I DO" crowd of liberal elites
 
I absolutely love her.

that she is a hypocritical twit doesn't bother you? she whines about overpaid executives and she gets paid for almost no teaching at a rate that could fund 6-7 assistant professors or high school teachers?
 
You can't really be serious right? Trump has been blasted in the media for people like David Duke supporting him. And you don't think that a judge who has connections to the KKK would face problems if he was the judge on a case where the person was black or any other minority?

I agree Trump's statements were poor at the very least. I honestly think this is another one of his moments where he says something incorrectly and of course the media jumps onto it, like they would with any other Republican. Is the judge in favor of illegal immigrants being afforded rights and benefits from America? Yes. Is he a member of a group that is associated with a far left/take America back group? Yes. Does Trump propose subjects that many illegal immigrants/ legal immigrants feel strongly against? Yes. Can you honestly say that there is no grounds for bias?

Trump did it the wrong way. I think he misspoke. He should not have done this in public most likely. And at most he should've stated that there was cause to question the judges unbiased opinion given the fact that he is a member of a group that awards illegal immigrants and a group that associates with the far left group that is blatantly about reclaiming America for the Mexican people. Simply because he is of Mexican herritage? No, that is a stupid statement and only hurts his case.

Either Trump is trying to manipulate that judge into favouring him so as to not appear biased or he's posturing for the peanut gallery, trying to lock up the below-average voters (who are exactly half of the population).
If he were serious about this bias crap he'd leave it in the hands of his lawyers (who probably have advised him to keep his trap shut because he's not doing them any favours).
 
So much for being the principled and unwavering darling of progressives. The news of her endorsement and her potential incorporation into Clinton's ticket would hopefully stimulate some introspection among progressives that will finally get them to get their heads out of their asses.
 
So much for being the principled and unwavering darling of progressives. The news of her endorsement and her potential incorporation into Clinton's ticket would hopefully stimulate some introspection among progressives that will finally get them to get their heads out of their asses.

It really should show them that nobody in Washington believes in their message. Especially when a career move like VP might come knocking.
 
that she is a hypocritical twit doesn't bother you? she whines about overpaid executives and she gets paid for almost no teaching at a rate that could fund 6-7 assistant professors or high school teachers?

In the political arena, that's pretty wishy-washy hypocrisy. I'd say the annoyance factor in being a whining twit (if you say so, I don't know of her) is 'way more serious.
 
Either Trump is trying to manipulate that judge into favouring him so as to not appear biased or he's posturing for the peanut gallery, trying to lock up the below-average voters (who are exactly half of the population).
If he were serious about this bias crap he'd leave it in the hands of his lawyers (who probably have advised him to keep his trap shut because he's not doing them any favours).

Yea obviously he should have left it in the courts. He probably thought that he would gain support by attacking a "Mexican" judge. But this possibly could finally cost him big.
 
It really should show them that nobody in Washington believes in their message. Especially when a career move like VP might come knocking.

At the very least, it should demonstrate to them that theirs is a political movement that has no entitlement to a high-ground of any sort. Case in point, considering Warren's conduct throughout the contentious and pivotal democratic primaries and the typical sleazy career move it constituted, nothing short of her repudiation would suffice. Yet the brightest of progressives would feel a bit queasy about it and still uphold their partisanship. The fodder of the movement, the believers, will tell us how its a brilliant political move that serves the progressive movement, or they'll just observe obstinacy and shake their heads like mental patients.
 
Why didn't she endorse the more "progressive" candidate?

Seems she wanted to hold off on endorsements in the primary. I'd liked it if she did... that she didn't doeserely bother me.
 
Back
Top Bottom