• 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!

Trump the Racist

clownboy said:
The problem here is you blind yourself to anything beyond that one factor. The judge's ethnicity AND his associations AND his history AND his actions AND his politics together show bias.
Click to expand...

Then file a motion.
 
mak2 said:
The only evidence you have this judge is incapable of doing his job is his ethnicity. Racism at its finest. Maybe this really will be Trumps downfall, but I doubt it. As far as I can tell all the Repubs that had reluctantly swung on board condemned the statement.
Click to expand...

Still regurgitating the same inaccuracies I see. The case has been laid out for the judge's bias, ignore it all you wish, doesn't make it go away. And once again, Mexican is not a race. I even posted the definition of racism for you since your search engine seems to be broken.
 
MrT said:
And you really are able to parse out a difference between the two positions contained in bold?
Click to expand...

When you make **** up and then post it as a quote from me you've automatically lost any argument.
 
mak2 said:
The only evidence you have this judge is incapable of doing his job is his ethnicity. Racism at its finest.
Click to expand...

Who claimed that bs?

If we have that "evidence", you should be able to show that "evidence".

Dishonesty at its finest.
 
MrT said:
:lamo

First, you didn't answer the question. How do you define racist?
Click to expand...

I don't need to, you ought to know the definition already.

Second, it is not just the "far left" that has denounced his comments as racist, let alone not "PC enough"
Click to expand...

I never claim they were the only people that has, but I am not talking about other people, I'm talking about the left.

Third, the number of "dems" slipping over to the DJT side are miniscule compared to the share of every demographic, including Republicans, that are currently moving towards the Hillary side.
Click to expand...

If they are "moving" towards The Queen of Corruption, then they probably are a figment of your imagination. Meaning, they are not GOP'ers. Now, DJT, he's bringing in a goodly number of dems, so I hear.
 
clownboy said:
And Ryan hasn't been a political whore before, nor has he ever been wrong. Is that what you're saying? It's not surprising the same damn politicians we've been complaining about are being politicians.
Click to expand...

And multiple conservatives on this site are calling it racist. You can't make this a "left" thing anymore.
 
MrT said:
No, it is not.

And. Every. Single. Attorney. Will. Tell. You. The. Same.
Click to expand...

And they would be wrong.

In part because of their recognition of the fact that judicial bias can seldom be proved, legislatures in many jurisdictions have authorized parties to seek disqualification on the basis of an “appearance” of judicial bias or impropriety. For example, the primary federal judicial statute, Title 28 U.S.C. § 455, contains a provision (§ 455 a) that calls for a federal judge to be disqualified not only when he is biased against a party, but whenever a reasonable, disinterested observed would think he might be. Many states have statutes or court rules that are to a similar effect.
Click to expand...

Bias or an Appearance of Bias - Judicial Disqualification Resource Center
 
legalimmigrant said:
A mere perception of bias is enough to step down.
Click to expand...

If a "mere perception" of bias were enough to stand down, our entire judicial system would be brought to a full stop.
 
Cardinal said:
And multiple conservatives on this site are calling it racist. You can't make this a "left" thing anymore.
Click to expand...

If you read any of my posts, I haven't been calling it a "left thing". Oh, it's leftist inspired, and any chance to throw more gasoline and spin and distort things further, the leftists certainly take the opportunity. But the conservatives on this site are largely Trump haters to begin with. They chose another candidate at the get go and now have huffed off to the corner to sulk and snipe.
 
Cardinal said:
If a "mere perception" of bias were enough to stand down, our entire judicial system would be brought to a full stop.
Click to expand...

It is, and it hasn't sunk our judicial system thus far.
 
Cardinal said:
I don't think Trump exactly qualifies as a "reasonable, disinterested observed." (sic)
Click to expand...

Well then, it's a good thing he doesn't have to be for the judge to be perceived as biased.
 
clownboy said:
If you read any of my posts, I haven't been calling it a "left thing". Oh, it's leftist inspired, and any chance to throw more gasoline and spin and distort things further, the leftists certainly take the opportunity. But the conservatives on this site are largely Trump haters to begin with. They chose another candidate at the get go and now have huffed off to the corner to sulk and snipe.
Click to expand...

Ohhhh, so it's the Left and the Trump Haters on the right.

There's a saying: "If everybody you meet is an asshole, you're the asshole."
 
Cardinal said:
Ohhhh, so it's the Left and the Trump Haters on the right.

There's a saying: "If everybody you meet is an asshole, you're the asshole."
Click to expand...

Well then, it's a good thing that the leftists and the anti-Trumpeteers on this site aren't anywhere near the sum total of everybody I meet. In fact, a minority.
 
DamnYankee said:
The left throws "racists" around so much it's lost its meaning.
Click to expand...

If you believe one race is superior (or inferior) to another, or all others, you're a racist, right?
 
JackA said:
Trump has revealed himself as an unabashed racist. It's what he is. Nothing he says now can undo that and make him what he isn't. The bigotry comes through even in a prepared text. Last night he closed his speech with this striking tid bit of condescension: "And we will take care of our Afro Americans". Apologies and "getting on script", as Mitch McConnell is advising, would only put the mask back on the real face we've all seen.
Click to expand...

B.S., Trump is pretty much the least racist individual in American public life today. Because he is not a well practiced and seldom uses a teleprompter he gives his political enemies a lot of propaganda talking points. Right now those enemies are the GOP Establishment as well as Democrats.
 
JackA said:
Trump has revealed himself as an unabashed racist. It's what he is. Nothing he says now can undo that and make him what he isn't. The bigotry comes through even in a prepared text. Last night he closed his speech with this striking tid bit of condescension: "And we will take care of our Afro Americans". Apologies and "getting on script", as Mitch McConnell is advising, would only put the mask back on the real face we've all seen.
Click to expand...

Since the liberals have labeled everyone a racist that slur has become pointless. But, Donald Trump is an admitted liar. He even brags about the Dan Rathereque postion of "truthful hyperbole". He has admitted he used aliases in his business. He had admitted giving politicians money so that when he called they would do what he wants which sure sounds like bribery. He has admitted being a lifelong liberal Democrat who has amazingly had a very late in life epiphany. He said he didn't get drafted because of a high draft number when being classified unfit for military service might have had something to do with it. He has repeatedly been fined for violations of the laws or regulations in his business operations. He's admitted, and was found legally liable, for hiring illegal aliens.

Let's face it. Americans are faced with two major political parties offering two crooks and a communist for President.
 
clownboy said:
Except he didn't say that. He's pointed to the judge's ethnicity to show the judge's bias.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Arguing that someone is inherently unsuitable to the exercise of public office - like, for example, arguing that they are inherently biased as a judge - because of their ethnicity is racist.

And he's correct.
Click to expand...

You think that Trump is correct to say that this Judge's Hispanic ethnicity makes him biased in this case and unsuitable to serve as its judge?
 
While I think this was a kind of bone head move on Trumps part,
If I were to play Devil's advocate, It would not be based on race,
but the Judges membership is a La Raza!
While a Hispanic Judge being in La Raza, may be no different than a Black Judge being in the NAACP,
the defense could argue that it would be akin to a white judge being in the KKK.
When one see stories like this,
San Jose Police Chief Who Admits ALLOWING ATTACKS on Trump Supporters is Affiliated With La Raza
Where the La Raza Affiliated Police Chief, allowed Violence against trump supporters.
It is not such a leap to see the relationship between southern law men and judges ruling in favor of the KKK.
 
clownboy said:
Yeah, because it's sooooo much better that he belongs to a different La Raza group. :roll:
Click to expand...

...it is. La Raza itself is not an organization, it's a phrase that translates variously to "The People", "The Community", or "The Race". The National Council of La Raza is a leftwing nutjob anti-American group. The group the Judge is a member of is a Bar Association. For example, Kimberly Guilfoyle, who is a huge Trump Booster on FOX News, is a member.
 
clownboy said:
When you make **** up and then post it as a quote from me you've automatically lost any argument.
Click to expand...

I didn't falsify a single aspect of your quote. When you place a portion of a quote in brackets, it refers to a statement that was not explicitly said, but was obviously implied by the person.

You disagreed with her characterization of the quote - which I included, but you obviously agreed with the actual quote - what is also what I included.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom