Sounds to me like judge's actions justified it in that case. She wasn't just barred from those cases because she's Iranian. There was evidence of a pattern of impropriety, supposedly.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Bernie sanders "fans" who vote for trump are voting for tax cuts for the rich, less Wall Street regulation, a roll back on social issues, less diplomacy, more war. Am sure I am missing much more? How is that even possible for someone who supports sanders? Gotta be a bunch of fucking morons.
You forgot racism, bigotry, and misogyny.
Holy Crap...this racism is a lot more widespread then we even knew!
So, this will be relevant to the Trump scenario when Judge Curiel is presiding over a Trump-related Mexican immigration case? No, it still wont, unless Judge Curiel is involved in a Mexican immigrant advocacy organization...good find there at the daily caller lol That's weak. It was weak yesterday on the Limbaugh show, and it's even weaker now!
Oh yeah? Were you listening to Limbaugh yesterday?
Nothing wrong with if they were. I read all the conservative rags. AmConMag, WS, NRO, Brietbart, etc. It's how you bulletproof your thinking and arguments.
Nothing wrong with it at all. It is just that Limbaugh has been away all week. It's possible Gambs tuned in to listen to the guest host but I am highly suspect.
Bernie sanders "fans" who vote for trump are voting for tax cuts for the rich, less Wall Street regulation, a roll back on social issues, less diplomacy, more war. Am sure I am missing much more? How is that even possible for someone who supports sanders? Gotta be a bunch of fucking morons.
You forgot racism, bigotry, and misogyny.
Holy Crap...this racism is a lot more widespread then we even knew!
So, this will be relevant to the Trump scenario when Judge Curiel is presiding over a Trump-related Mexican immigration case? No, it still wont, unless Judge Curiel is involved in a Mexican immigrant advocacy organization...good find there at the daily caller lol That's weak. It was weak yesterday on the Limbaugh show, and it's even weaker now!
Oh yeah? Were you listening to Limbaugh yesterday?
Nothing wrong with if they were. I read all the conservative rags. AmConMag, WS, NRO, Brietbart, etc. It's how you bulletproof your thinking and arguments.
Nothing wrong with it at all. It is just that Limbaugh has been away all week. It's possible Gambs tuned in to listen to the guest host but I am highly suspect.
Yeah, Buxton or Baxter or something, young guy by the sound of it. I liked him better than the English fellow (can't remember his name) who fills in most of the time. He just makes light of everything with sarcasm that isn't funny and jokes that fall flat.
There is a nugget of a point in the story, but the details are too far off to be any real comparison to the Trump scenario, and even if he was justified in his thought that Curiel should refuse, he still made the point in a racist manner more the, once.
Trump is going to crush Hillary, similar to the Obama landslide wins before this. People are massively stereotyping his support and don't realize how big his fan base is. Dude is a beast and straight mows down his opponents. Hillary has it coming and it's going to shock a lot of people.
How does he flip half a dozen Obama states?
Don't be stubborn just to be so. I voted Obama the last two elections and I want Bernie but I'm going trump now and so are a lot of Bernie fans I know. no way I go Hillary- that's establishment. I see it as change vs no change- if people are happy now and with the way things have been they vote hill if they're not they vote trump- and I think a lot more people want change than most think. Same way Obama pulled masses with empty promises trump is going to start pulling masses when people see Hillary is what they've already had
The amount of Bernie fans that will vote for Trump won't be more than .01%. And part of what Hillary has going for her is that you know what you're getting and it will be more or less status quo. Trump is way to risky to pull those people who fall undecided/in the middle. In November, those middle road, undecideds in the swing states will go with what's more comfortable.
Bernie sanders "fans" who vote for trump are voting for tax cuts for the rich, less Wall Street regulation, a roll back on social issues, less diplomacy, more war. Am sure I am missing much more? How is that even possible for someone who supports sanders? Gotta be a bunch of fucking morons.
You forgot racism, bigotry, and misogyny.
Holy Crap...this racism is a lot more widespread then we even knew!
So, this will be relevant to the Trump scenario when Judge Curiel is presiding over a Trump-related Mexican immigration case? No, it still wont, unless Judge Curiel is involved in a Mexican immigrant advocacy organization...good find there at the daily caller lol That's weak. It was weak yesterday on the Limbaugh show, and it's even weaker now!
Oh yeah? Were you listening to Limbaugh yesterday?
Nothing wrong with if they were. I read all the conservative rags. AmConMag, WS, NRO, Brietbart, etc. It's how you bulletproof your thinking and arguments.
Nothing wrong with it at all. It is just that Limbaugh has been away all week. It's possible Gambs tuned in to listen to the guest host but I am highly suspect.
Yeah, Buxton or Baxter or something, young guy by the sound of it. I liked him better than the English fellow (can't remember his name) who fills in most of the time. He just makes light of everything with sarcasm that isn't funny and jokes that fall flat.
There is a nugget of a point in the story, but the details are too far off to be any real comparison to the Trump scenario, and even if he was justified in his thought that Curiel should refuse, he still made the point in a racist manner more the, once.
Well the details are essentially the same...
The Obama administration is on record that this Iranian judge cannot possibly rule impartially due to her heritage. This fact cannot be explained away so don't even try.
The Obama administration is also on record as wanting diversity on the bench because it is their theory that a diverse heritage and experience will allow for more empathy and better judgements. This theory flies in the face of the idea that law is the law and should be interpreted as such regardless of a person's heritage. Empathy should have nothing to do with it and yet the argument continues.
The Obama administration and the progressive movement is also on record that a white jury couldn't possibly deliver a fair judgement in the trial of a minority and/or a white defendant charged with a crime against a minority. The white person you see couldn't possibly remove their heritage from the decision making process.
So essentially the Obama administration and the progressive movement sees race at play throughout the legal system and it is not even controversial.
Now with respect to Trump... Since day one these boards have said Latinos hate trump because of the wall and his stance on immigration. It is the progressive argument that a good and proper Latino would absolutely reject Trump and everything he stands for. When I have posted videos of Latinos who support Trump you all call that an anomaly and act as if it is a meaningless blip. So when Trump listens to you all and says "Hmmm...maybe this judge is not being fair to me because of my stance on the wall?" you all act as if this is the most insane thing you have ever heard and yet as per above you would have no problem agreeing with his sentiments if it was a minority defendant making the same statement about a white judge and/or jury. So which is it? It is time to start getting your stories straight on with respect to a judge's heritage and his/her ability to remain impartial.
If Obama made racist comments about Iranians, and was being sued, and then tried to have an Iranian judge removed from the case in which he was being sued because he was worried that she wou)don't be impartial due to his racist comments, then I would definitely have a problem with this.
I know little about the case, but I am still under the impression that the Iranian judge actually did some things to show that she wasn't being impartial. If that is the case, there is no story. Either way, it's not comparable to what Trump is attempting.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
If Obama made racist comments about Iranians, and was being sued, and then tried to have an Iranian judge removed from the case in which he was being sued because he was worried that she wou)don't be impartial due to his racist comments, then I would definitely have a problem with this.
I know little about the case, but I am still under the impression that the Iranian judge actually did some things to show that she wasn't being impartial. If that is the case, there is no story. Either way, it's not comparable to what Trump is attempting.
Nope. Tis the same. Obama administration is claiming an Iranian judge can't make impartial decisions due to her heritage.
If Obama made racist comments about Iranians, and was being sued, and then tried to have an Iranian judge removed from the case in which he was being sued because he was worried that she wou)don't be impartial due to his racist comments, then I would definitely have a problem with this.
I know little about the case, but I am still under the impression that the Iranian judge actually did some things to show that she wasn't being impartial. If that is the case, there is no story. Either way, it's not comparable to what Trump is attempting.
Nope. Tis the same. Obama administration is claiming an Iranian judge can't make impartial decisions due to her heritage.
And not because Obama is racist towards Iranians and is trying to get her off of a case against him. 'Tis not the same at all.
Please provide some evidence that the justice department doesn't have any reason,based on her behaviour, to dismiss this judge from immigration cases. You haven't shown that the judge never gave them any reason. I am not denying it. I just want to know why you are saying that she never gave them any reason.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Trump is going to crush Hillary, similar to the Obama landslide wins before this. People are massively stereotyping his support and don't realize how big his fan base is. Dude is a beast and straight mows down his opponents. Hillary has it coming and it's going to shock a lot of people.
He's running to be leader of the free world and represent all Americans, not to be first power forward taken in the draft. None of your adjectives should be used in that context.
If Obama made racist comments about Iranians, and was being sued, and then tried to have an Iranian judge removed from the case in which he was being sued because he was worried that she wou)don't be impartial due to his racist comments, then I would definitely have a problem with this.
I know little about the case, but I am still under the impression that the Iranian judge actually did some things to show that she wasn't being impartial. If that is the case, there is no story. Either way, it's not comparable to what Trump is attempting.
Nope. Tis the same. Obama administration is claiming an Iranian judge can't make impartial decisions due to her heritage.
And not because Obama is racist towards Iranians and is trying to get her off of a case against him. 'Tis not the same at all.
Please provide some evidence that the justice department doesn't have any reason,based on her behaviour, to dismiss this judge from immigration cases. You haven't shown that the judge never gave them any reason. I am not denying it. I just want to know why you are saying that she never gave them any reason.
On the contrary...where is your evidence that this judge had done anything wrong? It could be true but I have not seen that reported anywhere. This should be a claim that you have to prove before tarnishing the reputation of this judge.
If Obama made racist comments about Iranians, and was being sued, and then tried to have an Iranian judge removed from the case in which he was being sued because he was worried that she wou)don't be impartial due to his racist comments, then I would definitely have a problem with this.
I know little about the case, but I am still under the impression that the Iranian judge actually did some things to show that she wasn't being impartial. If that is the case, there is no story. Either way, it's not comparable to what Trump is attempting.
Nope. Tis the same. Obama administration is claiming an Iranian judge can't make impartial decisions due to her heritage.
And not because Obama is racist towards Iranians and is trying to get her off of a case against him. 'Tis not the same at all.
Please provide some evidence that the justice department doesn't have any reason,based on her behaviour, to dismiss this judge from immigration cases. You haven't shown that the judge never gave them any reason. I am not denying it. I just want to know why you are saying that she never gave them any reason.
On the contrary...where is your evidence that this judge had done anything wrong? It could be true but I have not seen that reported anywhere. This should be a claim that you have to prove before tarnishing the reputation of this judge.
You're the one who posted the issue. And I am not claiming or denying anything, as I already said. I am asking you for info showing that the administration did this solely because of her ethnicity because YOU claimed that but showed nothing confirming or even suggesting that. In what YOU posted it actually states that they did it because she had shown some behaviour that caused them to make that decision - that there were "improprieties" - but you're saying that's not the case. Why??
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
If Obama made racist comments about Iranians, and was being sued, and then tried to have an Iranian judge removed from the case in which he was being sued because he was worried that she wou)don't be impartial due to his racist comments, then I would definitely have a problem with this.
I know little about the case, but I am still under the impression that the Iranian judge actually did some things to show that she wasn't being impartial. If that is the case, there is no story. Either way, it's not comparable to what Trump is attempting.
Nope. Tis the same. Obama administration is claiming an Iranian judge can't make impartial decisions due to her heritage.
And not because Obama is racist towards Iranians and is trying to get her off of a case against him. 'Tis not the same at all.
Please provide some evidence that the justice department doesn't have any reason,based on her behaviour, to dismiss this judge from immigration cases. You haven't shown that the judge never gave them any reason. I am not denying it. I just want to know why you are saying that she never gave them any reason.
On the contrary...where is your evidence that this judge had done anything wrong? It could be true but I have not seen that reported anywhere. This should be a claim that you have to prove before tarnishing the reputation of this judge.
If Curiel is biased, why hasn't his counsel filed for recusal? There's a very simple answer: Lack of merit and attorney sanctions. Therefore Trump is trying to litigate the matter a personal matter as part of the campaign. What a fool.
If Obama made racist comments about Iranians, and was being sued, and then tried to have an Iranian judge removed from the case in which he was being sued because he was worried that she wou)don't be impartial due to his racist comments, then I would definitely have a problem with this.
I know little about the case, but I am still under the impression that the Iranian judge actually did some things to show that she wasn't being impartial. If that is the case, there is no story. Either way, it's not comparable to what Trump is attempting.
Nope. Tis the same. Obama administration is claiming an Iranian judge can't make impartial decisions due to her heritage.
And not because Obama is racist towards Iranians and is trying to get her off of a case against him. 'Tis not the same at all.
Please provide some evidence that the justice department doesn't have any reason,based on her behaviour, to dismiss this judge from immigration cases. You haven't shown that the judge never gave them any reason. I am not denying it. I just want to know why you are saying that she never gave them any reason.
On the contrary...where is your evidence that this judge had done anything wrong? It could be true but I have not seen that reported anywhere. This should be a claim that you have to prove before tarnishing the reputation of this judge.
If Curiel is biased, why hasn't his counsel filed for recusal? There's a very simple answer: Lack of merit and attorney sanctions. Therefore Trump is trying to litigate the matter a personal matter as part of the campaign. What a fool.
I completely agree with you on this. Where I part ways is on the charges of racism.
If Obama made racist comments about Iranians, and was being sued, and then tried to have an Iranian judge removed from the case in which he was being sued because he was worried that she wou)don't be impartial due to his racist comments, then I would definitely have a problem with this.
I know little about the case, but I am still under the impression that the Iranian judge actually did some things to show that she wasn't being impartial. If that is the case, there is no story. Either way, it's not comparable to what Trump is attempting.
Nope. Tis the same. Obama administration is claiming an Iranian judge can't make impartial decisions due to her heritage.
And not because Obama is racist towards Iranians and is trying to get her off of a case against him. 'Tis not the same at all.
Please provide some evidence that the justice department doesn't have any reason,based on her behaviour, to dismiss this judge from immigration cases. You haven't shown that the judge never gave them any reason. I am not denying it. I just want to know why you are saying that she never gave them any reason.
On the contrary...where is your evidence that this judge had done anything wrong? It could be true but I have not seen that reported anywhere. This should be a claim that you have to prove before tarnishing the reputation of this judge.
If Curiel is biased, why hasn't his counsel filed for recusal? There's a very simple answer: Lack of merit and attorney sanctions. Therefore Trump is trying to litigate the matter a personal matter as part of the campaign. What a fool.
I completely agree with you on this. Where I part ways is on the charges of racism.
I don't know if he is truly racist or not. I think he looks for attack angles regardless of whether they are perceived as racist. In other words, he's oblivious.
Bernie sanders "fans" who vote for trump are voting for tax cuts for the rich, less Wall Street regulation, a roll back on social issues, less diplomacy, more war. Am sure I am missing much more? How is that even possible for someone who supports sanders? Gotta be a bunch of fucking morons.
You forgot racism, bigotry, and misogyny.
Holy Crap...this racism is a lot more widespread then we even knew!
So, this will be relevant to the Trump scenario when Judge Curiel is presiding over a Trump-related Mexican immigration case? No, it still wont, unless Judge Curiel is involved in a Mexican immigrant advocacy organization...good find there at the daily caller lol That's weak. It was weak yesterday on the Limbaugh show, and it's even weaker now!
Oh yeah? Were you listening to Limbaugh yesterday?
Nothing wrong with if they were. I read all the conservative rags. AmConMag, WS, NRO, Brietbart, etc. It's how you bulletproof your thinking and arguments.
Nothing wrong with it at all. It is just that Limbaugh has been away all week. It's possible Gambs tuned in to listen to the guest host but I am highly suspect.
Yeah, Buxton or Baxter or something, young guy by the sound of it. I liked him better than the English fellow (can't remember his name) who fills in most of the time. He just makes light of everything with sarcasm that isn't funny and jokes that fall flat.
There is a nugget of a point in the story, but the details are too far off to be any real comparison to the Trump scenario, and even if he was justified in his thought that Curiel should refuse, he still made the point in a racist manner more the, once.
Well the details are essentially the same...
The Obama administration is on record that this Iranian judge cannot possibly rule impartially due to her heritage. This fact cannot be explained away so don't even try.
The Obama administration is also on record as wanting diversity on the bench because it is their theory that a diverse heritage and experience will allow for more empathy and better judgements. This theory flies in the face of the idea that law is the law and should be interpreted as such regardless of a person's heritage. Empathy should have nothing to do with it and yet the argument continues.
The Obama administration and the progressive movement is also on record that a white jury couldn't possibly deliver a fair judgement in the trial of a minority and/or a white defendant charged with a crime against a minority. The white person you see couldn't possibly remove their heritage from the decision making process.
So essentially the Obama administration and the progressive movement sees race at play throughout the legal system and it is not even controversial.
Now with respect to Trump... Since day one these boards have said Latinos hate trump because of the wall and his stance on immigration. It is the progressive argument that a good and proper Latino would absolutely reject Trump and everything he stands for. When I have posted videos of Latinos who support Trump you all call that an anomaly and act as if it is a meaningless blip. So when Trump listens to you all and says "Hmmm...maybe this judge is not being fair to me because of my stance on the wall?" you all act as if this is the most insane thing you have ever heard and yet as per above you would have no problem agreeing with his sentiments if it was a minority defendant making the same statement about a white judge and/or jury. So which is it? It is time to start getting your stories straight on with respect to a judge's heritage and his/her ability to remain impartial.
You don't think the detail that the Iranian Judge was asked to recuse herself from Iranian immigration cases is different than a Mexican Judge being asked to recuse himself from a fraud case that has nothing to do with Mexicans???
If Obama made racist comments about Iranians, and was being sued, and then tried to have an Iranian judge removed from the case in which he was being sued because he was worried that she wou)don't be impartial due to his racist comments, then I would definitely have a problem with this.
I know little about the case, but I am still under the impression that the Iranian judge actually did some things to show that she wasn't being impartial. If that is the case, there is no story. Either way, it's not comparable to what Trump is attempting.
Nope. Tis the same. Obama administration is claiming an Iranian judge can't make impartial decisions due to her heritage.
And not because Obama is racist towards Iranians and is trying to get her off of a case against him. 'Tis not the same at all.
Please provide some evidence that the justice department doesn't have any reason,based on her behaviour, to dismiss this judge from immigration cases. You haven't shown that the judge never gave them any reason. I am not denying it. I just want to know why you are saying that she never gave them any reason.
On the contrary...where is your evidence that this judge had done anything wrong? It could be true but I have not seen that reported anywhere. This should be a claim that you have to prove before tarnishing the reputation of this judge.
You're the one who posted the issue. And I am not claiming or denying anything, as I already said. I am asking you for info showing that the administration did this solely because of her ethnicity because YOU claimed that but showed nothing confirming or even suggesting that. In what YOU posted it actually states that they did it because she had shown some behaviour that caused them to make that decision - that there were "improprieties" - but you're saying that's not the case. Why??
If Obama made racist comments about Iranians, and was being sued, and then tried to have an Iranian judge removed from the case in which he was being sued because he was worried that she wou)don't be impartial due to his racist comments, then I would definitely have a problem with this.
I know little about the case, but I am still under the impression that the Iranian judge actually did some things to show that she wasn't being impartial. If that is the case, there is no story. Either way, it's not comparable to what Trump is attempting.
Nope. Tis the same. Obama administration is claiming an Iranian judge can't make impartial decisions due to her heritage.
And not because Obama is racist towards Iranians and is trying to get her off of a case against him. 'Tis not the same at all.
Please provide some evidence that the justice department doesn't have any reason,based on her behaviour, to dismiss this judge from immigration cases. You haven't shown that the judge never gave them any reason. I am not denying it. I just want to know why you are saying that she never gave them any reason.
On the contrary...where is your evidence that this judge had done anything wrong? It could be true but I have not seen that reported anywhere. This should be a claim that you have to prove before tarnishing the reputation of this judge.
If Curiel is biased, why hasn't his counsel filed for recusal? There's a very simple answer: Lack of merit and attorney sanctions. Therefore Trump is trying to litigate the matter a personal matter as part of the campaign. What a fool.
I completely agree with you on this. Where I part ways is on the charges of racism.
So Paul Ryan thinks trumps statements were the textbook definition of racism, but thats not good enough for you?
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
If Obama made racist comments about Iranians, and was being sued, and then tried to have an Iranian judge removed from the case in which he was being sued because he was worried that she wou)don't be impartial due to his racist comments, then I would definitely have a problem with this.
I know little about the case, but I am still under the impression that the Iranian judge actually did some things to show that she wasn't being impartial. If that is the case, there is no story. Either way, it's not comparable to what Trump is attempting.
Nope. Tis the same. Obama administration is claiming an Iranian judge can't make impartial decisions due to her heritage.
And not because Obama is racist towards Iranians and is trying to get her off of a case against him. 'Tis not the same at all.
Please provide some evidence that the justice department doesn't have any reason,based on her behaviour, to dismiss this judge from immigration cases. You haven't shown that the judge never gave them any reason. I am not denying it. I just want to know why you are saying that she never gave them any reason.
On the contrary...where is your evidence that this judge had done anything wrong? It could be true but I have not seen that reported anywhere. This should be a claim that you have to prove before tarnishing the reputation of this judge.
If Curiel is biased, why hasn't his counsel filed for recusal? There's a very simple answer: Lack of merit and attorney sanctions. Therefore Trump is trying to litigate the matter a personal matter as part of the campaign. What a fool.
I completely agree with you on this. Where I part ways is on the charges of racism.
So Paul Ryan thinks trumps statements were the textbook definition of racism, but thats not good enough for you?
You can throw in McCain, Romney, etc. It ain't just liberals.
If Obama made racist comments about Iranians, and was being sued, and then tried to have an Iranian judge removed from the case in which he was being sued because he was worried that she wou)don't be impartial due to his racist comments, then I would definitely have a problem with this.
I know little about the case, but I am still under the impression that the Iranian judge actually did some things to show that she wasn't being impartial. If that is the case, there is no story. Either way, it's not comparable to what Trump is attempting.
Nope. Tis the same. Obama administration is claiming an Iranian judge can't make impartial decisions due to her heritage.
And not because Obama is racist towards Iranians and is trying to get her off of a case against him. 'Tis not the same at all.
Please provide some evidence that the justice department doesn't have any reason,based on her behaviour, to dismiss this judge from immigration cases. You haven't shown that the judge never gave them any reason. I am not denying it. I just want to know why you are saying that she never gave them any reason.
On the contrary...where is your evidence that this judge had done anything wrong? It could be true but I have not seen that reported anywhere. This should be a claim that you have to prove before tarnishing the reputation of this judge.
If Curiel is biased, why hasn't his counsel filed for recusal? There's a very simple answer: Lack of merit and attorney sanctions. Therefore Trump is trying to litigate the matter a personal matter as part of the campaign. What a fool.
I completely agree with you on this. Where I part ways is on the charges of racism.
So Paul Ryan thinks trumps statements were the textbook definition of racism, but thats not good enough for you?
You can throw in McCain, Romney, etc. It ain't just liberals.
The thing that I don't get is how some people can say "Well, he says racist things, but that doesn't necessarily mean hes a racist."
Fuck that. That makes it crystal clear to me that he is a racist. People claiming different are either really, really.......really dumb or their pants are on fire.
And if you can even entertain the idea of voting for someone who is openly racist.....well.....that should say a lot about someone.
The major media outlets have filed a motion with the court to release the video depositions of Trump in the 'University' case. Trump's lawyers, of course, plan to oppose the release. I imagine they must not be flattering. I find it interesting that every major network and newspaper has signed on to the motion with the exception of Fox News. Now you might scream 'liberal media', but every journalist that covers the election has the obligation to obtain as much information as possible. Fox will abdicate that responsibility of course.
This issue can do irreparable damage the very core of Trump's message. Swindling the average American is as bad as it gets. We've spent pages screaming about the overt racism, but I'm not sure we (and the media) have spent nearly enough time talking about the fact the U was a total con.
People felt conned after the fact they didn't become billionaires overnight. Greed.
^^ this is very funny.
But it's clear from the playbook that was released, that the goal of the U was not to educate the 'students', but to separate the consumers from their money. Whether the suit has merit is for the courts, but the concept is damning for someone who wants to be President. It's far worse than Romney and his PE business which got lots of bad PR.
Comments
There is a nugget of a point in the story, but the details are too far off to be any real comparison to the Trump scenario, and even if he was justified in his thought that Curiel should refuse, he still made the point in a racist manner more the, once.
The Obama administration is on record that this Iranian judge cannot possibly rule impartially due to her heritage. This fact cannot be explained away so don't even try.
The Obama administration is also on record as wanting diversity on the bench because it is their theory that a diverse heritage and experience will allow for more empathy and better judgements. This theory flies in the face of the idea that law is the law and should be interpreted as such regardless of a person's heritage. Empathy should have nothing to do with it and yet the argument continues.
The Obama administration and the progressive movement is also on record that a white jury couldn't possibly deliver a fair judgement in the trial of a minority and/or a white defendant charged with a crime against a minority. The white person you see couldn't possibly remove their heritage from the decision making process.
So essentially the Obama administration and the progressive movement sees race at play throughout the legal system and it is not even controversial.
Now with respect to Trump...
Since day one these boards have said Latinos hate trump because of the wall and his stance on immigration. It is the progressive argument that a good and proper Latino would absolutely reject Trump and everything he stands for. When I have posted videos of Latinos who support Trump you all call that an anomaly and act as if it is a meaningless blip. So when Trump listens to you all and says "Hmmm...maybe this judge is not being fair to me because of my stance on the wall?" you all act as if this is the most insane thing you have ever heard and yet as per above you would have no problem agreeing with his sentiments if it was a minority defendant making the same statement about a white judge and/or jury. So which is it? It is time to start getting your stories straight on with respect to a judge's heritage and his/her ability to remain impartial.
I know little about the case, but I am still under the impression that the Iranian judge actually did some things to show that she wasn't being impartial. If that is the case, there is no story. Either way, it's not comparable to what Trump is attempting.
And not because Obama is racist towards Iranians and is trying to get her off of a case against him. 'Tis not the same at all.
Please provide some evidence that the justice department doesn't have any reason,based on her behaviour, to dismiss this judge from immigration cases. You haven't shown that the judge never gave them any reason. I am not denying it. I just want to know why you are saying that she never gave them any reason.
Because he may be a racist in his eyes and he's ok with that.
Just because you call someone racist doesn't mean they really are.
http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=379550390
we will find a way, we will find our place
we will find a way, we will find our place
Fuck that. That makes it crystal clear to me that he is a racist. People claiming different are either really, really.......really dumb or their pants are on fire.
And if you can even entertain the idea of voting for someone who is openly racist.....well.....that should say a lot about someone.
This issue can do irreparable damage the very core of Trump's message. Swindling the average American is as bad as it gets. We've spent pages screaming about the overt racism, but I'm not sure we (and the media) have spent nearly enough time talking about the fact the U was a total con.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/06/trump-university-media-video-depositions-224213
But it's clear from the playbook that was released, that the goal of the U was not to educate the 'students', but to separate the consumers from their money. Whether the suit has merit is for the courts, but the concept is damning for someone who wants to be President. It's far worse than Romney and his PE business which got lots of bad PR.