Trump's attacks American judge as Mexican

[JimL]

He's accusing the judge of bias and linking the Judge's Mexican heritage as an opposition to Trump's stance on illegal immigration.
Yes I know, so where is Trumps evidence of bias on the part of the judge?



That's all I have been saying. I never said Trump was correct. What I've been saying all along is that Trump didn't JUST say he was Mexican, despite what Shuny claimed in his click bait thread title.

Well actually that is all Trump is saying, that the judge is Mexican, that he is obviously biased because of his Mexican heritage, which of course he is not, he's as American as you are. If Trump is going to claim judicial bias, then he has to show some evidence to support the claim. Trump is just trying to win his case in the minds of his constituency since he is afraid of how it will look if he loses it legally, which seems likely.

[shunyadragon]

No he didn't. He said he hated Trump because he was Mexican and Trump wanted to deport illegal Mexicans. You left that key aspect out. Being “of Mexican heritage” (phrase from your OP) would not have mattered had it not been for Trump's stance on illegal immigration. THAT is what Trump says the conflict of interest is. It's a 2 part claim, and you isolated 1. Hence, click bait, and error on your part.

This is contorted logic. There is no constructive purpose in accusing the Judge of bias, and saying he hates him, because he is Mexican. It was very late in the monologue history that he made the reference to 'Mexican heritage.' Trump's whole monologue in this case reflects 'ethnic prejudice.' He has never in this monologue referred to the judge as an American

It is not a two part issue. It is a clear issue the accusation of ones heritage should never be an issue of bias alone in court cases. This has never been the case in US law.

[Bill the Cat]

Well actually that is all Trump is saying, that the judge is Mexican, that he is obviously biased because of his Mexican heritage, which of course he is not, he's as American as you are.

No that is not "all Trump is saying". He is saying that because of Trump's stance on immigration that his heritage was coming into play. It's more than just about his heritage, despite what Shuny's thread title claimed.

If Trump is going to claim judicial bias, then he has to show some evidence to support the claim.

Sorry, but his thread title didn't mention "judicial bias", so until he admits that, no further interaction will happen.

[Bill the Cat]

This is contorted logic.

You wouldn't know good logic if it fell from the sky and presented you with a check for $100

There is no constructive purpose in accusing the Judge of bias,

I'm sorry, but where in your thread title is bias mentioned?

and saying he hates him, because he is Mexican.

AND BECAUSE OF TRUMP'S POSITION ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. Will you PLEASE stop omitting that?????

It was very late in the monologue history that he made the reference to 'Mexican heritage.' Trump's whole monologue in this case reflects 'ethnic prejudice.' He has never in this monologue referred to the judge as an American

Why would he need to?

It is not a two part issue.

Yes it is!!! Trump didn't accuse the judge of bias before his immigration stance was known. Therefore, it is a 2 part issue and you are moronically ignoring the most important piece of information in your click bait thread title.

It is a clear issue the accusation of ones heritage should never be an issue of bias alone in court cases.

It's not the case here. Had this happened before Trump mentioned immigration, there would have been no charge of bias. It's simple math, and your wounded pride won't allow you to admit your liberal idea is only half of the story.

[JimL]

No that is not "all Trump is saying". He is saying that because of Trump's stance on immigration that his heritage was coming into play. It's more than just about his heritage, despite what Shuny's thread title claimed.

No it isn't about more than just the judges heritage or Trump would have made that argument. He didn't!

Sorry, but his thread title didn't mention "judicial bias", so until he admits that, no further interaction will happen.

Sorry but Judicial Bias is Trumps only contention, and the only reason he gives for that is the Judges heritage. Btw, conflict of interest = bias! So bias is mentioned in the O.P. despite your claim to the contrary.

[Mountain Man]

It turns out that Trump was right on the money to question the judge's integrity since it has been revealed that he has ties to La Raza.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...urt-documents/

[Juvenal]

It's not the case here. Had this happened before Trump mentioned immigration, there would have been no charge of bias. It's simple math, and your wounded pride won't allow you to admit your liberal idea is only half of the story.

There's certainly more to this story, setting aside the question of whether we should dignify Trump's latest tantrum as a "charge of bias." Trump U., like the best of scandals, has moved from the charges of fraud themselves to the cover up, in this case including a full-throated, directly personal, Trumpian attack on a federal judge. While this would be cause for concern from any citizen, in this case it's coming from a presumptive presidential nominee.

The real charge is that Trump is, to say it nicely, temperamentally unfit for the office.

More bluntly, the guy is freaking nuts.

He lives in a stew of conspiracy theories seasoned by radical rewrites of his own history and alternate realities. He can't release his taxes because they're under audit. Facts don't matter. It's convenient that he didn't support the war in Iraq, so he didn't support the war in Iraq, transcripts saying otherwise be damned. Consistency doesn't matter. We should leave Syria as an ISIS-free zone, and we should put tens of thousands of American troops in to settle their hash. Straight-up contradictions don't matter. Hispanics love him and a Mexican-American judge is biasing a federal class action suit against him because Hispanics hate him.

And of all the Mexican-American judges he could attack, he attacks this one.

That Judge Attacked by Donald Trump? He’s Faced a Lot Worse

For much of a year, Gonzalo P. Curiel, then a federal prosecutor in California, lived officially in hiding.

He hunkered down for a while on a naval base and in other closely guarded locations under the protection of United States marshals. Even his siblings did not know exactly where he was at times.

The reason: In a secretly taped conversation inside a San Diego prison, a man accused of being a gunman for a Mexican drug cartel said that he had received permission from his superiors to have Mr. Curiel assassinated.

Trump has picked the wrong guy to accuse of having a bias toward illegal immigrants.

Everyone from Mother Jones to the National Review is calling Trump U. a scam. Three separate class-action suits are proceeding in this case. He's lost in court, and at appeal in New York. The documents released in the case before Judge Curiel detail sales techniques that included coaxing senior citizens to ask for increases in their credit limits to pay for the package. He personally pocketed $5 million on the scam.

He claims he gave it back. Until WaPo reporters proved they wouldn't let go on checking him, he was also claiming he'd already ponied up the $1 million he'd promised to vets. He's still claiming he won't accept repayment for his personal loans to his campaign. From his history, we can be sure even he doesn't know if that's true.

He's an id with hair.

[Spartacus]

How well-known was Trump's immigration policy when the case started back in 2014?

[arnoldo]

Who's going to decide the verdict of the case. . . the judge or jury?

[Bill the Cat]

Who's going to decide the verdict of the case. . . the judge or jury?

IIRC, since it is a civil suit, there is no jury.

[arnoldo]

Now would be a good time for Trump to pick a female hispanic vice president. . .
Governor_NewMexico.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susana_Martinez

[Bill the Cat]

There's certainly more to this story, setting aside the question of whether we should dignify Trump's latest tantrum as a "charge of bias." Trump U., like the best of scandals, has moved from the charges of fraud themselves to the cover up, in this case including a full-throated, directly personal, Trumpian attack on a federal judge. While this would be cause for concern from any citizen, in this case it's coming from a presumptive presidential nominee.

The real charge is that Trump is, to say it nicely, temperamentally unfit for the office.

More bluntly, the guy is freaking nuts.

He lives in a stew of conspiracy theories seasoned by radical rewrites of his own history and alternate realities. He can't release his taxes because they're under audit. Facts don't matter. It's convenient that he didn't support the war in Iraq, so he didn't support the war in Iraq, transcripts saying otherwise be damned. Consistency doesn't matter. We should leave Syria as an ISIS-free zone, and we should put tens of thousands of American troops in to settle their hash. Straight-up contradictions don't matter. Hispanics love him and a Mexican-American judge is biasing a federal class action suit against him because Hispanics hate him.

And of all the Mexican-American judges he could attack, he attacks this one.

That Judge Attacked by Donald Trump? He’s Faced a Lot Worse

For much of a year, Gonzalo P. Curiel, then a federal prosecutor in California, lived officially in hiding.

He hunkered down for a while on a naval base and in other closely guarded locations under the protection of United States marshals. Even his siblings did not know exactly where he was at times.

The reason: In a secretly taped conversation inside a San Diego prison, a man accused of being a gunman for a Mexican drug cartel said that he had received permission from his superiors to have Mr. Curiel assassinated.

Trump has picked the wrong guy to accuse of having a bias toward illegal immigrants.

Everyone from Mother Jones to the National Review is calling Trump U. a scam. Three separate class-action suits are proceeding in this case. He's lost in court, and at appeal in New York. The documents released in the case before Judge Curiel detail sales techniques that included coaxing senior citizens to ask for increases in their credit limits to pay for the package. He personally pocketed $5 million on the scam.

He claims he gave it back. Until WaPo reporters proved they wouldn't let go on checking him, he was also claiming he'd already ponied up the $1 million he'd promised to vets. He's still claiming he won't accept repayment for his personal loans to his campaign. From his history, we can be sure even he doesn't know if that's true.

He's an id with hair.

I honestly think that if this case is decided against Trump U., it will deal a huge blow to the "for profit" college industry in general, not to mention motivational speakers like Tony Robbins or Suze Orman. Many of these for profit schools make empty promises and use deceptive and overblown advertising. Look at what happened to Capella University or University of Phoenix. Heck, read the link I provided about the for profit school my wife was involved with. The problem is that, for some people, these things actually work. Like me. I got a BS from a for profit college, and it qualified me to apply for the security job I eventually got in '08. There is no way I could have gone to a traditional college with all I was doing at that time. Others were not as successful, and they too sued and won.

[Jaecp]

I honestly think that if this case is decided against Trump U., it will deal a huge blow to the "for profit" college industry in general, not to mention motivational speakers like Tony Robbins or Suze Orman. Many of these for profit schools make empty promises and use deceptive and overblown advertising. Look at what happened to Capella University or University of Phoenix. Heck, read the link I provided about the for profit school my wife was involved with. The problem is that, for some people, these things actually work. Like me. I got a BS from a for profit college, and it qualified me to apply for the security job I eventually got in '08. There is no way I could have gone to a traditional college with all I was doing at that time. Others were not as successful, and they too sued and won.

Moderator Notice

Language warning for linked article

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

Just as it happens, I was at my mothers house with my sister last night and while I was cooking up dinner for the three of us my mom brought up a recent OPB special of Suze Ormans. She was giving a talk about investments and I've done some work and taken some university courses that focused on this so I made sure to listen intently to correct any misinformation.

Most of the talk she gave I'd describe as the first couple of sentences of every major section in a single chapter of my corporate finance book. None of it was wrong or deceptive, just simple and for a mass, lay audience and with a couple slogans that, on their own, were a bit weird, but then she explained what she meant by them I... I dunno, mentioned the oddities, but it wasn't a big deal. Stuff like "The best financial adviser is you!" by which she then explained, as she was answering a question by a man uncertain of whether to keep his home or rent an apartment, that in situations like that if its personal preference and not a money thing then her only advice was to listen to what he felt.

These kinds of people (Less familiar with Robbins, but from what I've seen he couches his speeches in the same feel good generalness of... every idiot with a Britney Spears mic that can shout about how everyone can be winners if they try hard enough) aren't going anywhere

Those colleges? Screwed either way

Cracked recently had an article on for profit schools and relatively simple commonsense rules are basically forcing the closure of a bunch of terrible programs. Sure, there can be good programs, but the FTC is currently sueing one of the big ones for using jobs as a waiter to pad their employment numbers so as to attract more students. Just... disgusting. It's nice that you were successful, but there are lies and trickery like crazy in that industry. The cracked link has a plethora of citations about lawsuits (both by the FTC and private individuals) as well as stats about how like 72% of for profit program graduates are actually making less money than high school only people because of all the debt they go into. It's kind of nuts.

[Mountain Man]

More bluntly, the guy is freaking nuts.

At least that's the narrative the liberals are going with. Except that a guy who is "freaking nuts" is unlikely to succeed at business the way Trump has.

So the choice is between a candidate who sold her loyalties to the highest bidder as Secretary of State and endangered state secrets by illegally trafficking them on an unsecured private server, and a successful business man who liberals insist is "freaking nuts" despite all evidence to the contrary?

That's a pretty easy choice for any rational person.

[Leonhard]

At least that's the narrative the liberals are going with. Except that a guy who is "freaking nuts" is unlikely to succeed at business the way Trump has.

Trump's successes aren't exactly consistent, he's good at rubbing the bill off on others when they collapse. If you count that as succeeding then sure. He's a litigious, serial liar, and a bully as well.

About the only thing he's good at is being gross, dumb and saying politically incorrect things. Somehow that tickles the tea party movement.

There is no doubt that Trump is nuts. From the birther conspiracy theory he pushed hard on, or his flirting with 9/11 inside job conspiracy, that senator Rafael Cruz had a hand in the assassination of Kennedy, him buying into email scams such as a story of a guy who killed muslims with bullets dipped in pigs blood (a scam story), that Mexico is deliberately exporting criminals into the country, that vaccines cause autism, that "global warming" is a hoax invented for nefarious purposes, that voter fraud is a problem that immigrants are exploting, that Obama was won in because of dead voters (at least he claims that they overwhelming voted for Obama)...

Of course Trump is very smooth about it. All of his endorsements of these conspiracy theories aren't done entirely. There's always a level of evasiveness about it. If you like him, and you're fanboying, you can always say he didn't exactly, really, explicitly, fully and completely said that Obama was an African Muslim named Barry Sotowo... he only said that he'd heard that, and it might be true, and why hasn't Obama released the full form birth certificate (the green one), isn't he hiding something... I'm only saying....

Which is the way most conspiracy theorists talk (short of Alex Jones types and Coast to Coast Radio).

Either he buys into that stuff, or he intentionally is appealing to the kind of people who are. I don't know which of these are scarier. One implies a dangerous president, the other implies a conservative party that's lost its integrity.