.ZZ. Posted June 8, 2016 #276 Share Posted June 8, 2016 I have to admit the Trumpster lost me with the judge thing. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted June 8, 2016 #277 Share Posted June 8, 2016 55 minutes ago, pallidin said: The disturbing thing (among other disturbing things) is that Trump IS NEVER WRONG EVEN WHEN HE IS WRONG. Trump "spins" unpopular response to " You misunderstood me, you jerk, go back to your momma" "This is what I meant to say, blah, blah, blah, regardless of what I said earlier on record." "You're just a total loser if you can't see that" I see it too. Can you imagine replies like that being the winning arguments around here? UM Member #1: "You're just a total loser if you can't see that." UM Member #2: "Well I wasn't sure at first, but since you put it that way." Nobody wants to be a loser I guess (voting for a candidate who can't win or something). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted June 8, 2016 #278 Share Posted June 8, 2016 12 hours ago, Poppi said: Sorry, Otto... don't have time to spend waiting for a response to my posts. Thanks for the vinegar. This forum is like New York city in that it never stops. Am used to sites where i can come back 3-4 days later and resume where i left off. ...sharia is not a part of our law- true.... But sharia is practiced here in NA, and the UK, France etc...imams are their law. Worked in 3 mosques about 15-20 years ago. In the mens entrance (yes women and children were not allowed to enter) there were hundreds of pictures of mutilated and dead martyr pictures. In the womens and childrens entrances- there were hundreds of pictures of dead and mutilated bodies...to the entrance of the place where they worship. 3. Different. mosques...Worked at a Temple where there was a riot with sticks and swords- because there was a disagreement about whether tables should be allowed into the temple. If anyone thinks there are no- no go zones in the UK, France, Dearborn, then we have lost already. ..because there is a battle/war going on...A different form of terrorism. The imaginary line... Sorry, what posts did you wish for a reply to? Was that you talking about that stuff about sharia law? Surely it should be up to you to provide evidence of these no-go zones in the UK of which you speak. Anyway, why did you work in a mosque if you fear and hate Islam? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted June 8, 2016 Author #279 Share Posted June 8, 2016 If someone responds (media or otherwise) that "No, Trump, you are not God", Trump goes on an irrational, ranting attack which makes him look even more stupid. I know, it's odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted June 8, 2016 #280 Share Posted June 8, 2016 People never ever go on irrational ranting attacks about mr. T of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted June 8, 2016 #281 Share Posted June 8, 2016 3 hours ago, ZZ430 said: I have to admit the Trumpster lost me with the judge thing. What is all this business about this judge? I'm afraid all that's gone completely over my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted June 8, 2016 #282 Share Posted June 8, 2016 18 minutes ago, Otto von Pickelhaube said: What is all this business about this judge? I'm afraid all that's gone completely over my head. Judge is a member of an organisation with a name that is vaguely like another organisation, Trump doesnt like the other organisation, so conflates the two and calls the judge names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted June 8, 2016 #283 Share Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said: Judge is a member of an organisation with a name that is vaguely like another organisation, Trump doesnt like the other organisation, so conflates the two and calls the judge names. That's hardly it. The impartiality of judges is routinely questioned by liberals, all with none of the drama or hand wringing people are showing over this. Quote But what exactly had Trump done wrong? How was it unreasonable to suggest that a judge belonging to a group pledging to advance Latino interests might be biased against the man who wants to build the wall that hinders the interests of Latino politicians? Had we not just witnessed Latinos in San Jose throw eggs and sucker punches at Trump supporters, and wave the Mexican flag? Had not McConnell himself, by hoping Trump would change his standard rhetoric, conceded that liberal Latinos – of which Curiel belongs – viewed Trump’s proposals with animus? If one listened to Hillary and her cabal of Republicans, Trump is a modern day version of Orval Faubus – the Arkansas governor who resisted court ordered integration of schools. But that conclusion is based on left-wing fan fiction that holds any time a white male questions a protected minority the motivation must be rooted in discriminatory animus. Judge Curiel’s integrity is not being questioned by Trump just because of his Hispanic heritage. Trump is merely asserting that a person’s heritage does not foreclose a proper inquiry into their political activism and potential biases; he is suggesting that Curiel – a man who supports awarding an illegal alien a scholarship – might not view favorably a man who wants to deport the said scholarship recipient. Recusal is a common theme when pro-choice advocates run up against pro-life judges. Recently, some scholars wanted Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself from McCullen v. Coakley; a case concerning abortion clinic buffer zones. But such requests are rarely viewed in a negative light. The fact is seeking recusal – even if just discussing it – is a great way to preserve the integrity of the bench. Federal judges are appointed for life, unelected, and reviewed by other unelected judges. It is why Thomas Jefferson warned the federal bench could easily become a “despotism of an oligarchy.” So why blast Trump for his Jeffersonian view of the judiciary? Democrats know Hillary is in trouble. They know the economic outlook is bleak and for almost 8 years the party has had no answers. It is why Hillary is making much ado about nothing and, frankly, the voters don’t care about the judicial politics of one class action lawsuit. Breitbart Harte Edited June 8, 2016 by Harte Nunya 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted June 8, 2016 #284 Share Posted June 8, 2016 3 minutes ago, Harte said: That's hardly it. The impartiality of judges is routinely questioned by liberals, all with none of the drama or hand wringing people are showing over this. Breitbart? Harte you can do better 'n that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted June 8, 2016 #285 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Attack the source? Please point out exactly where they are wrong, or even biased, in this article. Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted June 8, 2016 #286 Share Posted June 8, 2016 1 minute ago, Harte said: Attack the source? Please point out exactly where they are wrong, or even biased, in this article. Harte The article does not mention that the judge been on the case for 2 years before Trump started his rant. I understand that if he had before 2014 that the judge would have had to quit because he was biased. At the time it was no theme. Making it now is just a cheap attempt to delay the judgement of a case that Trump will loose. That is what is known as shystering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted June 8, 2016 #287 Share Posted June 8, 2016 1 minute ago, questionmark said: The article does not mention that the judge been on the case for 2 years before Trump started his rant. I understand that if he had before 2014 that the judge would have had to quit because he was biased. At the time it was no theme. Making it now is just a cheap attempt to delay the judgement of a case that Trump will loose. That is what is known as shystering. An extremely common legal tactic. So, Trump's side can't use the same legal techniques available to everyone else in the US? In what way is this different from questioning the impartiality of (for example) a Supreme Court Justice, as Breitbart points out? There's certainly an argument to be made that the judge isn't impartial. You would tie the hands of Trump's legal team to suit your own bias. Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted June 8, 2016 #288 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Just now, Harte said: An extremely common legal tactic. So, Trump's side can't use the same legal techniques available to everyone else in the US? In what way is this different from questioning the impartiality of (for example) a Supreme Court Justice, as Breitbart points out? There's certainly an argument to be made that the judge isn't impartial. You would tie the hands of Trump's legal team to suit your own bias. Harte Not that common, because he would set the precedent that a Hispanic judge can rule over somebody who rants against Hispanics, which by extension will be that a Christian cannot judge a Muslim, a White no Black, a Black no White if any of them start ranting against them. And I doubt that is the system we want. Everybody will pull that one as soon as they are loosing (cause if you want to throw a stone at a dog you will find a stone... in extreme cases even a dog). And that will be the end of the justice system (Not that it is still in a great shape either). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted June 8, 2016 #289 Share Posted June 8, 2016 And an anti-abortion Supreme Court Justice has no role in any abortion case on the Supreme Court, according to you? What "precedent" would that set? I'm not arguing that the judge is biased - I'm saying that this sort of argument is made all the time in courtrooms without the fake drama and hand wringing accompanying this instance. This will obviously be grounds for appeal. People with money can afford these tactics, and very often win out on them. Harte 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted June 8, 2016 #290 Share Posted June 8, 2016 45 minutes ago, Harte said: And an anti-abortion Supreme Court Justice has no role in any abortion case on the Supreme Court, according to you? What "precedent" would that set? I'm not arguing that the judge is biased - I'm saying that this sort of argument is made all the time in courtrooms without the fake drama and hand wringing accompanying this instance. This will obviously be grounds for appeal. People with money can afford these tactics, and very often win out on them. Harte And if he gets away with that tactic expect a racially separated court to become reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted June 8, 2016 #291 Share Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) Quote But what exactly had Trump done wrong? How was it unreasonable to suggest that a judge belonging to a group pledging to advance Latino interests might be biased against the man who wants to build the wall that hinders the interests of Latino politicians? What has Trump done wrong? Judge Curiel is sitting in the case against Trump University, and hasn't been treating Trump like he is a Messiah in regards that case. So, Trump has made an ad hom attack against the Judge, accusing him of "racial bias" because he Hispanic and belongs to/is affiliated with some groups that support the Hispanic community in the US - therefore Trump automatically assumes he is bringing his antagonism against Trump's anti-Hispanic rhetoric into the case against Trump University. Trump has impugned the judge by implying he is unable to separate one situation from the other, and suggested the judge has a "vendetta" against him. Trump is doing this because the case against Trump University isn't all going his way - it's a tantrum, a hissy fit - and is close to slandering the judge by calling into question his fitness to stand in the case against Trump University. Edited June 8, 2016 by Leonardo 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Posted June 8, 2016 #292 Share Posted June 8, 2016 " Had we not just witnessed Latinos in San Jose throw eggs and sucker punches at Trump supporters, and wave the Mexican flag? " Sorry to side track this, but does it befuddle anyone else when they see immigrants (illegal or legal) who fled their country to come to another country and they still wave the flag of the country they left? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted June 8, 2016 #293 Share Posted June 8, 2016 1 hour ago, questionmark said: And if he gets away with that tactic expect a racially separated court to become reality. bull****. It happens every day. Wouldn't even be news if Trump hadn't said it publicly. Harte 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted June 8, 2016 #294 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Just now, Harte said: bull****. It happens every day. Wouldn't even be news if Trump hadn't said it publicly. Harte Yes, and that makes it dangerous. Half of the law of the country is set by precedent, the other half by written law. Filing a frivolous motion happens every day, one that gets publicity and succeeds gets imitated. And it needs no genius to figure out the end of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted June 8, 2016 #295 Share Posted June 8, 2016 I can see Hillary, were she to be ever indicted, using the "conflict of interest" argument to get rid of any pro-republican judges.( If Trump successfully uses the argument to get rid of his judge that is) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted June 8, 2016 Author #296 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Trump is a spoiled child freak that never grew-up to stop being a bully. He is mentally sick, repugnant, repulsive and in no way suitable to be President. My dog is better suited. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted June 8, 2016 Author #297 Share Posted June 8, 2016 THE SHEEPLES OF TRUMP Oh, yes sir, whatever you say, Mr. Trump, I will agree with to my dying day. You are never, ever wrong, Mr. Trump. NEVER. Anyone who thinks you are is, as you said, an idiot and loser. May I please, Mr. Trump, eat the crumbs you drop on the floor? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Posted June 8, 2016 #298 Share Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) There is reason which is more than enough..... .....IT`S TRUMP! Edited June 8, 2016 by hellwyr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted June 8, 2016 #299 Share Posted June 8, 2016 21 minutes ago, pallidin said: THE SHEEPLES OF TRUMP Oh, yes sir, whatever you say, Mr. Trump, I will agree with to my dying day. You are never, ever wrong, Mr. Trump. NEVER. Anyone who thinks you are is, as you said, an idiot and loser. May I please, Mr. Trump, eat the crumbs you drop on the floor? have you thought of collecting these razor-sharp satires of yours into a book? I'm sure there'd be a market for it, 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Posted June 8, 2016 #300 Share Posted June 8, 2016 3 hours ago, pallidin said: THE SHEEPLES OF TRUMP Oh, yes sir, whatever you say, Mr. Trump, I will agree with to my dying day. You are never, ever wrong, Mr. Trump. NEVER. Anyone who thinks you are is, as you said, an idiot and loser. May I please, Mr. Trump, eat the crumbs you drop on the floor? Trump could be replaced with Hillary and this would still be effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now