Official Donald Trump for President thread (11 Viewers)

[msommer]

Was mentioned earlier it was before.

So in Drumpf's universe you get a judge who makes rulings against you, you insult his ethniticity (but not his nationality) and that is then grounds for removal of the judge



There aren't enough of thse smilies to express my mirth

 

[[scooter]]

Sweet J is Native American?

He's Elizabeth Warren's cousin.

 

[Higgs]

It's not my intent to avoid any point. Do you have a press release from the bar association group on number 1?  If the Judge was involved in preparing or joining in that statement, I would agree that it raises an appearance of bias at the very least, if not grounds for recusal.

As a follow-up question, you said you're okay with judges belonging to political parties. I'm pretty sure the Democratic Party has come out against Trump's proposals. I would think a Democratic judge would have an even greater likelihood to be biased.  Can you explain the distinction?

BB - sorry I skipped over this.  Dealing with squeaky wheels and all...

I made an allowance for political parties because you have to allow people to have some sort of political life.  A Judge's vote counts just as much as anyone else's.  They should have a right to be involved in the political process, to the extent that political party participation allows for this, and cast a meaningful vote.  So yeah, I believe we have to make an allowance for participation in political parties, even if there is an inherent bias there.

Look, in an ideal world Judges could do whatever they want - belong to any civic or advocacy group - and they would leave their personal biases at the door when they preside over a case involving their views.  And I think in general this is what happens.  But there are those rare occasions where there are legal grounds for recusing a judge based on a perceived conflict of interest.  It is limited primarily to instances of family relationships or financial interest only.  But the issue of a personal bias affecting a judge on racial/ethnic issues presents a compelling case that really hasn't been properly vetted in my opinion.  The standard seems to have been set with the Higganbotham ruling in 1975, where a black judge ruled that his own involvement with civil rights organizations did not create enough of a conflict of interest to warrant his own recusal as Judge of a case involving racial discrimination.  Great - so the Judge who may have a personal bias is the one deciding if he has a personal bias?  Where I come from they call that giving the fox the keys to the hen house.

Trump, as usual, raises a provocative question, an issue that has some merit to it and at its heart probably rings true - but unfortunately is so laced in controversey that it gets lost in all the noise.  And yes - that is nobody's fault but his own.  But that doesn't mean the issue doesn't have some merit.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think that whirlwind of Trump was being reported more like a natural disaster or plane crash than an actual political candidate for most of the primary.  Many reporters have let him off the hook, but the nature of the politics of the GOP primary was never about substance so there seemed to have been a mutually beneficial situation where CNN/etc can have their highly viewable reality drama and Trump could promote his self interest.  

Perhaps it's because the media never really took him seriously that he was dealt with with kids gloves, but I think it's clear that all of that is over.  He simply can not use the same methods of deflecting like more insults or "red" meat (10 FOOT HIGHER!!! etc).  I've said it before in this thread, but it's probably a 50/50 proposition that he does a one on one debate.  He is absolutely shook when it comes to discussing policy.  

Reporters now smell the blood in the water, they will all be wanting to ask the next tough question that makes him say something incredibly stupid. 

Hardening back to your earlier comment... I don't think he's trying to lose. But he's put himself in a bit of a trap. The journalistic attitude is totally turned around like you said, you're right. But Trump has also put himself in a position where reporters tee up a controversial position, which he may have zero clue about, or he knows it's politically incorrect, and in order to keep driving the news cycle he has to agree to it. He has this idea that anything standard or normal is politically correct. He thinks that he gains if he says outrageous stuff. So he just agrees with what the reporter puts to him, he doubles down, and so he just gets progressively either dumber or more outrageous.

In other words it's going to get worse and every week and every month will be worse than the week and month before.

 

[Higgs]

Like this one that's already been brought up multiple times? http://www.irishamericanbar.com/ I see no reason why someone belonging to that association could not preside over the Freddie Gray case. Professional associations are all over the place and many are based on ethnicity or other unifying factors such as religion. I'd be shocked if there were many judges out there that didn't belong to some sort of association.

That all being said, the case against Trump has absolutely nothing to do with race or ethnicity or Latinos. His screwing people out of money seemed to be non-prejudicial. So this whole conversation is nonsense. It makes no sense. The Trump U case doesn't even have anything to do with Mexicans or building a wall or illegal Latino immigrants. 

Yes - like that.  Dumb, stupid, and unnecessary.  And the better analogy would be if the Irish Judge were presiding over a case involving a presidential candidate who had proposed policies that were being rejected so viscerally by a majority of Irish - including the group to which he belongs.  Yeah, in that scenario I would feel the same way about the Judge having to step down due to conflict of interest.

 

[Higgs]

He's Elizabeth Warren's cousin.

His Mammaw said he had high cheekbones.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yes - like that.  Dumb, stupid, and unnecessary.  And the better analogy would be if the Irish Judge were presiding over a case involving a presidential candidate who had proposed policies that were being rejected so viscerally by a majority of Irish - including the group to which he belongs.  Yeah, in that scenario I would feel the same way about the Judge having to step down due to conflict of interest.

Higgs I think you have to start to separate what is - at its best - an idealistic point, that judges should divorce themselves from all racial and ethnic and ideological associations to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. 

I think Donald's now raising on CBS that even Muslim judges would have to recuse themselves in cases involving him has raised the curtain from his real ideology. I think he has left you behind and you are now speaking of a very refined, almost ivory tower philosophical desire that I guess we would all want, the perfectly 'objective' judge. - But here we are talking Trump and you and he are now making completely different points.

 

[[scooter]]

And the better analogy would be if the Irish Judge were presiding over a case involving a presidential candidate who had proposed policies that were being rejected so viscerally by a majority of Irish - including the group to which he belongs.

Hmmm. Is it possible that the SOLE reason Trump is running for president is because he wanted to get Judge Curiel recused from his case?

 

[timschochet]

Hmm

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/06/05/trump-muhammad-ali-tweet-muslim-nr.cnn

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Reading this (yes Newsmax)...I'm thinking either Trump is the most cynical charlatan to run for anything in America ever or he just wakes up in the morning with no idea what he thinks or believes except how to defend whatever he said the day before.

In 2012 he assailed the GOP in being too 'mean spirited' towards Latinos.

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/465363

 

[lod001]

Hmm

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/06/05/trump-muhammad-ali-tweet-muslim-nr.cnn

 

[rct]

No surprise that Trump isn't sure a Muslim judge would treat him fairly either.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/05/donald_trump_isn_t_sure_a_muslim_judge_would_treat_him_fairly_either.html

On Sunday, CBS’s Face the Nation host John Dickerson pushed Trump to flesh out this logic by asking would it be a problem, for Trump, given his call for a ban on Muslim’s entering the U.S., if the judge in a case he was involved in was a Muslim?


Dickerson: If it was a Muslim judge do you also feel like they wouldn’t be able to treat you fairly because of that policy of yours?


Trump: Uhhhhhhh… It’s possible, yes. That would be possible. Absolutely.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Priebus still has no idea.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/priebus-trump-needs-to-evolve-in-how-he-talks-about-hispanics/

 

[cstu]

The GOP's deepest fear: A Barry Goldwater effect that could last far longer than Trump's political aspirations.
"I am concerned about that," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said Sunday.
 
"America is changing. When Ronald Reagan was elected, 84% of the electorate was white," McConnell said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "This November, 70% will be. It's a big mistake for our party to write off Latino Americans. And they're an important part of the country and soon to be the largest minority group in the country."
 
"I hope he'll change his direction on that," said McConnell, who first made the Goldwater comparison last week in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/05/politics/gop-fears-donald-trump-judge-attack/

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Trump: 'Qadaffi gave me a lot of money'.

 

[cstu]

Reading this (yes Newsmax)...I'm thinking either Trump is the most cynical charlatan to run for anything in America ever or he just wakes up in the morning with no idea what he thinks or believes except how to defend whatever he said the day before.

In 2012 he assailed the GOP in being too 'mean spirited' towards Latinos.

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/465363

I think he talks about whatever is on his mind at that particular moment.  Not a lot of deep thought going into it and that's part of his appeal.  It will also be his downfall (yes, I'm looking forward to a new Hitler reaction video when he loses).

 

[Sweet J]

He's Elizabeth Warren's cousin.

Just to be clear, I've never claimed to be Indian.  Higgs said something about being a member of a bar association as grounds for recusal.  I'm a member of the Native American bar because I used to practice Indian law.  

 

[Higgs]

Higgs I think you have to start to separate what is - at its best - an idealistic point, that judges should divorce themselves from all racial and ethnic and ideological associations to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. 

I think Donald's now raising on CBS that even Muslim judges would have to recuse themselves in cases involving him has raised the curtain from his real ideology. I think he has left you behind and you are now speaking of a very refined, almost ivory tower philosophical desire that I guess we would all want, the perfectly 'objective' judge. - But here we are talking Trump and you and he are now making completely different points.

Fair point.  I think I acknowledged earlier that my boy Trump has given me a sore spine from all the contortions.  I have been careful to defend him on a very specific point on this issue - and where I have chosen to drawn my philosophical line with regard to bias - and that is the affiliation with the Latino advocacy group (I keep forgetting the initials).

I'm not sure how I feel yet about Trump's broader concerns about racial bias that I hear he raised this morning.  Quite honestly it's tough keeping up with him.  I spend all day talking about the advocacy group angle and Trump is already going down an entirely different road, arguing that racial groups in and of themselves might have an unacceptable implicit bias on racial issues. Without having thought about this angle all that much, my first reaction is that I think what Trump says here may have some truth to it, but that it's a stupid thing to even raise as even if it does exist it's likely a problem without any type of workable solution.  We simply can't operate in a world where identity politics becomes so much a part of our being that even our Judges can't put their own biases aside.  We can talk about whether it exists, and to what extent, but even if it does - we aren't going to be able to do anything about it.  We can't have black courts, white courts, and hispanic courts.  But we can do something about Judges and their involvement with racial advocacy groups, and I'd like to think that America can at least have a reasoned discussion on this.  That's all I was trying to do in here today.  And unfortunately, as was evidenced by the actions and comments from the usual intolerant liberal crowd in here, the country seems totally incapable of even having an intelligent conversation on these issues.  And that's sad.  Truly the mark of a nation in big trouble.

 

[Higgs]

No surprise that Trump isn't sure a Muslim judge would treat him fairly either.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/05/donald_trump_isn_t_sure_a_muslim_judge_would_treat_him_fairly_either.html

On Sunday, CBS’s Face the Nation host John Dickerson pushed Trump to flesh out this logic by asking would it be a problem, for Trump, given his call for a ban on Muslim’s entering the U.S., if the judge in a case he was involved in was a Muslim?


Dickerson: If it was a Muslim judge do you also feel like they wouldn’t be able to treat you fairly because of that policy of yours?


Trump: Uhhhhhhh… It’s possible, yes. That would be possible. Absolutely.

BY the way, as someone who watches a ton of political television, I have to say that John Dickerson is the best in the business.  His interview with Trump today was a masterclass in how the media should be doing their job.  Completely fair, tough, and right down the middle...  For those looking for media coverage that is as unbiased as it gets, look no further than CBS.

 

[Higgs]

Can someone explain to me why we are calling a professional lawyers association an "advocacy group"? I'm lost. 

Just spit-balling here, but maybe because of the association's Mission Statement, wherein they refer to themselves as an advocacy group?  HTH.

 

[SoBeDad]

Fair point.  I think I acknowledged earlier that my boy Trump has given me a sore spine from all the contortions.  I have been careful to defend him on a very specific point on this issue - and where I have chosen to drawn my philosophical the line with regard to bias - and that is the affiliation with the Latino advocacy group (I keep forgetting the initials).

I'm not sure how I feel yet about Trump's broader concerns about racial bias that I hear he raised this morning.  Quite honestly it's tough keeping up with him.  I spend all day talking about the advocacy group angle and Trump is already going down an entirely different road, arguing that racial groups in and of themselves might have an unacceptable implicit bias on racial issues. Without having thought about this angle all that much, my first reaction is that I think what Trump says here may have some truth to it, but that it's a stupid thing to even raise as even if it does exist it's likely a problem without any type of workable solution.  We simply can't operate in a world where identity politics becomes so much a part of our being that even our Judges can't put their own biases aside.  We can talk about whether it exists, and to what extent, but even if it does - we aren't going to be able to do anything about it.  We can't have black courts, white courts, and hispanic courts.  But we can do something about Judges and their involvement with racial advocacy groups, and I'd like to think that America can at least have a reasoned discussion on this.  That's all I was trying to do in here today.  And unfortunately, as was evidenced by the actions and comments from the usual intolerant liberal crowd in here, the country seems totally incapable of even having an intelligent conversation on these issues.  And that's sad.  Truly the mark of a nation in big trouble.

Imagine if Kasich, Rubio or Ryan had been the nominee. There would've been a more rational national discussion about the economy, the deficit, immigration, terrorism, climate change and other issues. There would be no talk about a ban on Muslims, the deportation of 11 million immigrants, Judge Curiel, David Duke or a wall that Mexico won't pay for. Trump himself has contributed to the perception of a more divided nation.     

 

[Higgs]

Just to be clear, I've never claimed to be Indian.  Higgs said something about being a member of a bar association as grounds for recusal.  I'm a member of the Native American bar because I used to practice Indian law.  

 Wait a minute - you're a Lawyer?????  

 

[cobalt_27]

I don't get Trump on any level.  But, is it even within the realm of possibility that he doesn't want to win and that winning this election might even be antithetical to his true purpose for getting in the race in the first place?

 

[bueno]

I don't get Trump on any level.  But, is it even within the realm of possibility that he doesn't want to win and that winning this election might even be antithetical to his true purpose for getting in the race in the first place?

If his purpose is to divide the Republicans into a fiscally irresponsible party and an anti-big government party, then he is succeeding, no matter how the general goes.

 

[sho nuff]

If his purpose is to divide the Republicans into a fiscally irresponsible party and an anti-big government party, then he is succeeding, no matter how the general goes.

They have already been those things for a while now.

 

[Higgs]

The Trump U case has no "impact" on anyone's race

Of course it does.  The case itself may not have a direct impact, but the result most certainly will.

 

[bueno]

They have already been those things for a while now.

They have been the same party though. Trump might break the coalition. Back in my day, we had two wings: the business wing and the religious wing. The Tea Party was a break from the Republicans, but it didn't go anywhere, in part because the religious wing of the GOP hijacked it. I think it is back with a vengeance.

 

[bueno]

Ready when you are, friend. Name your topic. I'll start another thread if need be.

You win. A banana is bigger than a Higgs Boson, but it isn't as weighty.

 

[Higgs]

You win. A banana is bigger than a Higgs Boson, but it isn't as weighty.

The Higgs boson is what gives the banana it's weight.  

 

[Higgs]

Ready when you are, friend. Name your topic. I'll start another thread if need be.

What are you, a West Coaster?  Or one of those Bernie types that doesn't work in the morning?

I'm off to bed chief.  Maybe tomorrow.

 

[cstu]

Fair point.  I think I acknowledged earlier that my boy Trump has given me a sore spine from all the contortions.  I have been careful to defend him on a very specific point on this issue - and where I have chosen to drawn my philosophical line with regard to bias - and that is the affiliation with the Latino advocacy group (I keep forgetting the initials).

I'm not sure how I feel yet about Trump's broader concerns about racial bias that I hear he raised this morning.  Quite honestly it's tough keeping up with him.  I spend all day talking about the advocacy group angle and Trump is already going down an entirely different road, arguing that racial groups in and of themselves might have an unacceptable implicit bias on racial issues. Without having thought about this angle all that much, my first reaction is that I think what Trump says here may have some truth to it, but that it's a stupid thing to even raise as even if it does exist it's likely a problem without any type of workable solution.  We simply can't operate in a world where identity politics becomes so much a part of our being that even our Judges can't put their own biases aside.  We can talk about whether it exists, and to what extent, but even if it does - we aren't going to be able to do anything about it.  We can't have black courts, white courts, and hispanic courts.  But we can do something about Judges and their involvement with racial advocacy groups, and I'd like to think that America can at least have a reasoned discussion on this.  That's all I was trying to do in here today.  And unfortunately, as was evidenced by the actions and comments from the usual intolerant liberal crowd in here, the country seems totally incapable of even having an intelligent conversation on these issues.  And that's sad.  Truly the mark of a nation in big trouble.

First, Trump attacked the judge:

"Defendant became the front-runner for the Republican nomination in the 2016 presidential race, and has placed the integrity of these court proceedings at issue," Curiel said in an order unsealing a series of internal Trump University documents that Trump's lawyers asked be kept from the public.

Second, I don't believe (lawyers correct me if I'm wrong) the records should have been sealed in the first place.

 

[Higgs]

Hmm

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/06/05/trump-muhammad-ali-tweet-muslim-nr.cnn

Whole lotta hypocrisy when it comes to Trump, Ali and bigotry/racism.  https://youtu.be/HqiWFLsgVi4

 

[Higgs]

I live in Orange County, CA with the rest of the libtards, of course. Your boy Darrell Issa is my former congressman.

Anytime, any place, muchacho. Or are you one of those Trump types that ducks debates?

As a reminder, it was you who ducked the debate this afternoon.  Now get some sleep, cuz I'm gonna peel your ### tomorrow.

 

[3C's]

Every time I click "show this post" I ask myself why I keep doing that. Can't get enough of the clown show I guess.

 

[Card Trader]

Because I went to buy a fish to surprise my girlfriend with when she got home from work? Is that your rationale? Sorry, Klaus, I don't schedule my life around your little nonsense internet temper tantrums.

Goodnight, Moonbeam.

 

[[scooter]]

How much did you raise?

Trump held the fundraiser on January 28th. He didn't cut most of the checks until May 24th. At 5% interest, that's around $90,000. Wonder where that money went?

edit: and how do we even know that he only raised $5.6 million? Maybe he really did raise the full $6M, or $7M, or who knows how much? We may never know what really happened to the money. All we know is that Trump didn't really give it away until after he was called out by the fourth estate.

 

[tone1oc]

Fair point.  I think I acknowledged earlier that my boy Trump has given me a sore spine from all the contortions.  I have been careful to defend him on a very specific point on this issue - and where I have chosen to drawn my philosophical line with regard to bias - and that is the affiliation with the Latino advocacy group (I keep forgetting the initials).

I'm not sure how I feel yet about Trump's broader concerns about racial bias that I hear he raised this morning.  Quite honestly it's tough keeping up with him.  I spend all day talking about the advocacy group angle and Trump is already going down an entirely different road, arguing that racial groups in and of themselves might have an unacceptable implicit bias on racial issues. Without having thought about this angle all that much, my first reaction is that I think what Trump says here may have some truth to it, but that it's a stupid thing to even raise as even if it does exist it's likely a problem without any type of workable solution.  We simply can't operate in a world where identity politics becomes so much a part of our being that even our Judges can't put their own biases aside.  We can talk about whether it exists, and to what extent, but even if it does - we aren't going to be able to do anything about it.  We can't have black courts, white courts, and hispanic courts.  But we can do something about Judges and their involvement with racial advocacy groups, and I'd like to think that America can at least have a reasoned discussion on this.  That's all I was trying to do in here today.  And unfortunately, as was evidenced by the actions and comments from the usual intolerant liberal crowd in here, the country seems totally incapable of even having an intelligent conversation on these issues.  And that's sad.  Truly the mark of a nation in big trouble.

See the thing about this argument was never that it was unfounded or ignorant in and of itself.  The issue was the square pegging the issue to defend Trump's comments.  

I for can appreciate your ability to recognize some nuance in the conversation and would suspect many more would be open to intelligent conversation if there was something other than determining if someone's comments were just ignorant & misguided, or plain old racist, and to what degree.

I do appreciate your honesty and it's probably fair to say you'd rather be defending any of the other 17 contestants. 

 

[Card Trader]

The story too complicated for you Sheriff Joe? Should I have made it easier to understand?

Make the fishtank great again!

Build a Walleye!

(I actually bought a bullfrog tadpole. $2.50)

 

[3C's]

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 14h14 hours ago
I am watching @CNN very little lately because they are so biased against me showing me for the fraud I am. Shows are predictable garbage (when they don't say nice things about me)! CNN and MSM is one big lie! (and if anyone knows about big lies it's Trump)

Trump tweet fixed for accuracy. Question is though, how does he know the shows/reporting are biased against him if he isn't watching?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Donald Trump admits support for ‘surgical’ Libya intervention despite repeatedly claiming opposition

...

On Sunday, the volatile VIP changed his tune on yet another stance, saying he would have approved a “surgical” military operation to take out former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi after months of stating that he would have not intervened in the North African nation.

“I didn't mind surgical. And I said surgical. You do a surgical shot and you take them out,” Trump said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” after host John Dickerson confronted the mogul with a 2011 video of him saying he would have intervened in Libya.

“I was for doing something, but I wasn`t for what you have right now,” Trump continued. “I was never for a strong intervention. I could have seen surgical, where you take out Gadhafi and his group,” he said after further needling from Dickerson.

The video Dickerson played showed Trump saying that “we should go in. We should stop this guy, which would be very easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it and save these lives.”

But throughout his campaign, Trump has often criticized likely Democratic nominee for supporting intervening in Libya when she was secretary of state and has repeatedly said helping to take out Gaddafi was a mistake.

For example, at a debate in February, Trump said the U.S. “would be so much better off if Gaddafi would be in charge right now.”

...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/flip-flop-trump-admits-suppoted-libya-intervention-article-1.2662238

- If there have been times when I thought Trump might make sense, it is when he has talked about the common sense obvious reality of the absurdity of our mideast military policies as a whole, and I mean 2001-16, at least and maybe 1990-2016. And as part of that if one thing made sense it was the foolishness of what we did in Libya and what has happened since.

But this is just silly, what he's talking about is essentially what we did with some caveats that we obviously had at least one CIA covert ops mission on the ground and most recently I've heard/read that we have special forces in Libya now, etc., but what we did in 2011 was what Trump is discussing there anyway. Not to mention he said he 'made a fortune' from Qadaffi.

And this isn't a real "flip-flop". A true flip flop is a politician who sees a policy is either unpopular or maybe has 'evolved' and so changes their position over time for various policy reasons.  This by Trump is not a flip flop. This is a guy who was just making stuff up on the spot, and misrepresented his position, and got called out on it. To watch it is really to see Dickerson just blow Trump away with his own words. This Sunday gives me greater confidence that the press will be doing their jobs finally.

 

[3C's]

Wonder if he has any idea on what a "surgical" military operation is and just how difficult it can be? Guarantee it wouldn't be (have been) "very easy".

 

[joffer]

what an ###-clown

 

[Sweet J]

Sorry I mischaracterized you gb. 

You DO know more than Higgs about racism, or are you going to deny that too?

My biggest beef with Higgs is his weird comments about race.  I.e., "I'm the least racist person there is,"  (typically stated after expressing frustration that blacks "have it better than whites" when it comes to applying for college, or other benefits that institutions give minorities over whites).  Statements indicating that blacks have it better than whites when it comes to college applications -- which may be true, I haven't studied the issue enough, but it ignores the MASSIVE abuse and hardships that black people have been on the receiving end on in this country historically, and ignores the MASSIVE effect it has on people even today.

And then says something like "but why isn't there a white bar association" -- and the fact that he doesn't even realize how offensive a thing like that is to say.

And THEN excuses it by saying: "but I have family that is black!"  Which somehow excuses him from analytically thinking about things.  If he wanted to respond to my post about the historic treatment of the black population by refuting my historical recitation as inapplicable in today's climate, I'd disagree, but at least we could have a respectful conversation about it.  But instead, he refuses to talk facts but simply relies on "but my sister is black," as it somehow gives him more insight than some stranger on the internet.  What?  How is that even relevant?  

bananafish, I'm not sure if you made the comment about knowing racism because we are Faceboook friends.  But sure, if it was somehow relevant that a person, for example, grew up in a black section of 1970's Boston, has black siblings, whose dad left and was raised by an uncle who is black, then sure, we could compare resumes. But that doesn't make me immune from being racist or sexist or a general #######.  Hell, race probably isn't on my mind NEARLY as much as someone as [poster's name removed], and I wouldn't presume to know more about the things he has to navigate.  But again, that doesn't make his opinion on the world more valid than mine or yours or even Higgs'.

Finally, I'm also about the whitest nerd in any given room full of white guys, and have thusly benefited in this country by being white, and tall, and straight.  I'm extremely lucky that I was born looking like I do in this country in this time period.  I'm consistently blown away by white men who are so angry about their place in this country.  We have it great!  What's frustrating about Higgs is that he is not someone like Peens, but he's actually smart, and thoughtful, and even introspective.  He just occasionally says things that fly in the face of my worldview, and I don't understand how he can be that smart and still hold those opinions, knowing the history of race in this country.  But I could be missing something I guess.  

EDIT:  On second thought, it's not my place to put other people's business out on the Interwebs.

 

[Skoo]

No surprise that Trump isn't sure a Muslim judge would treat him fairly either.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/05/donald_trump_isn_t_sure_a_muslim_judge_would_treat_him_fairly_either.html

On Sunday, CBS’s Face the Nation host John Dickerson pushed Trump to flesh out this logic by asking would it be a problem, for Trump, given his call for a ban on Muslim’s entering the U.S., if the judge in a case he was involved in was a Muslim?


Dickerson: If it was a Muslim judge do you also feel like they wouldn’t be able to treat you fairly because of that policy of yours?


Trump: Uhhhhhhh… It’s possible, yes. That would be possible. Absolutely.

See this is where that not having any political experience whatsoever is really going to start to hurt Trump. 

He makes these comments but has no clue that they are a big deal because he is running for POTUS.

 

[Jeremy]

Watching other Republican politicians try to "support the nominee" while also trying to distance themselves from Trump's racist comments has been interesting to say the least.  Mitch McConnell was asked on Meet the Press if he thought the comments were racist to which he replied that he strongly disagreed with Trump's statements on the judge.  Chuck Todd asked again if the statements were racist.  Same non answer.  Chuck searches for another way to ask the question, but then just asks it the same way again.  Same answer.  He refused to answer the question before finally saying that winning the white house was what was important. 

Another Republican this morning on Morning Joe said he wasn't sure if he would vote for Trump, saying he hopes Trump will clean up his act (the implication being that he might become less racist in the next 5 months?).  This "maybe not" answer was met with approval as this is what passes for rebellion in today's politics.  Essentially 'I'm thinking about not voting for the racist. I haven't decided yet'. 

If you think the Trump supporters in these threads are doing some fancy gymnastics, you ain't seen nothin' yet.  I can't wait for the convention.

 

[Sweet J]

 Wait a minute - you're a Lawyer?????  

That shouldn't be a surprise to you, should it?  I've known some real dumb ### clowns who were lawyers, and I'm guessing you have too.  Just because we have those letters after our names, it doesn't make us immune from being ignorant ####stools. 

 

[CBusAlex]

We can't have black courts, white courts, and hispanic courts.

O/U 7.5 days before Trump calls for exactly this

 

[TobiasFunke]

Watching other Republican politicians try to "support the nominee" while also trying to distance themselves from Trump's racist comments has been interesting to say the least.  Mitch McConnell was asked on Meet the Press if he thought the comments were racist to which he replied that he strongly disagreed with Trump's statements on the judge.  Chuck Todd asked again if the statements were racist.  Same non answer.  Chuck searches for another way to ask the question, but then just asks it the same way again.  Same answer.  He refused to answer the question before finally saying that winning the white house was what was important. 

Another Republican this morning on Morning Joe said he wasn't sure if he would vote for Trump, saying he hopes Trump will clean up his act (the implication being that he might become less racist in the next 5 months?).  This "maybe not" answer was met with approval as this is what passes for rebellion in today's politics.  Essentially 'I'm thinking about not voting for the racist. I haven't decided yet'. 

If you think the Trump supporters in these threads are doing some fancy gymnastics, you ain't seen nothin' yet.  I can't wait for the convention.

This is a fun read.  Former critics of Trump in the GOP with their previous comments contrasted with more recent ones.

My favorite:
 

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul

January 25, 2016: “Donald Trump is a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag. A speck of dirt is way more qualified to be president.”

May 5, 2016: “You know, I’ve always said I’ll endorse the nominee.”

Another fun little tidbit I've noticed- a lot of Republicans don't seem to understand what the word "unacceptable" means.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Watching other Republican politicians try to "support the nominee" while also trying to distance themselves from Trump's racist comments has been interesting to say the least.  Mitch McConnell was asked on Meet the Press if he thought the comments were racist to which he replied that he strongly disagreed with Trump's statements on the judge.  Chuck Todd asked again if the statements were racist.  Same non answer.  Chuck searches for another way to ask the question, but then just asks it the same way again.  Same answer.  He refused to answer the question before finally saying that winning the white house was what was important. 

Another Republican this morning on Morning Joe said he wasn't sure if he would vote for Trump, saying he hopes Trump will clean up his act (the implication being that he might become less racist in the next 5 months?).  This "maybe not" answer was met with approval as this is what passes for rebellion in today's politics.  Essentially 'I'm thinking about not voting for the racist. I haven't decided yet'. 

If you think the Trump supporters in these threads are doing some fancy gymnastics, you ain't seen nothin' yet.  I can't wait for the convention.

It's just going to get worse because Trump is going to get worse. He eschews advisors, he almost never writes a speech or has prepared talking points, and he thinks that saying outrageous things or being contrarian to common wisdom or longstanding policy is good politics. as reporters lead him into questions this will just lead to more contradictions, more/worse outrageous statements, and more/worse boneheaded ideas.

I think a good reporter question for these GOP pols who are twisting themselves is 'ok you've endorsed Trump, but are you proud of your endorsement?'

 

[3C's]

Just wish that trial was before instead of after the election. Would just add to the trainwreck. Then again, losing the election followed by losing the trial would be fun too.