Trump

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

The Juggler said:

Cliffy6745 said:

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!

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/10/the-obama-admin-blocked-an-iranian-american-judge-from-hearing-iranian-immigration-cases/

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.

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

The Juggler said:

Cliffy6745 said:

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!

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/10/the-obama-admin-blocked-an-iranian-american-judge-from-hearing-iranian-immigration-cases/

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.