What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Donald Trump for President thread (7 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rick James said:
to say, "Personal beliefs don't affect your judgement" is absolutely absurd. Judges are humans. They have personal beliefs and emotions. It probably wasn't wise for Don to publicly say what he said, but I think he has a legit point with this judge.
Click to expand...
By your rationale I could get a judge thrown off my case for just about anything.

"Well, the judge is a Cowboys fan and I'm an Eagles fan, clearly he's going to be biased against me."

Or I could go the way of the Donald. If I find out I have a minority judge presiding over my case, I can say a bunch of racist stuff and get him thrown out!

There's a reason no politician is backing him on this one. It's kind of a big deal.

 
Rick James said:
to say, "Personal beliefs don't affect your judgement" is absolutely absurd. Judges are humans. They have personal beliefs and emotions. It probably wasn't wise for Don to publicly say what he said, but I think he has a legit point with this judge.
Click to expand...
he really doesn't

 
Rick James said:
to say, "Personal beliefs don't affect your judgement" is absolutely absurd. Judges are humans. They have personal beliefs and emotions. It probably wasn't wise for Don to publicly say what he said, but I think he has a legit point with this judge.
Click to expand...
Um . . . what is this judge's "personal belief" that affects his judgement?

 
Higgs said:
Spin it all you want.  The undeniable implication is that race matters in jury verdicts.
Click to expand...
Interesting. You seem to believe that this ruling means race must be considered in jury selection. Everyone else in the world seems to think it means race cannot be considered. Luckily for us, these two interpretations make distinct testable predictions, so we can empirically determine which one is correct!

If everyone except Higgs is correct, then defendants will be entitled to a new trial only if it can be shown that the prosecution excluded potential jurors on the basis of race. If Higgs is correct, every single person convicted by an all-white jury (or all-black, or all-anything for that matter) will be able to get a retrial.

Which do we expect to happen, in the real world?

 
Who could have possibly foreseen Trump being a fraud, conman with a bizarre outlook? It's coming out of nowhere, absolutely zero warning signs. He seemed so grounded.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The crazy thing is there's still a ton of people who "support" him or plan to vote for him. None of this matters. It doesn't matter that he says racist or incendiary things. It doesn't matter that he has no clue on foreign policy. It doesn't matter that he's (been accused of being) a scam artist. It doesn't matter that the economy would struggle if he does the things he claims he would do. It doesn't matter that he lies and flip-flops. Saw something today where some gun group endorsed him basically because HILLARY! After nearly 8 years of Obama these people still think "they're coming for our guns!"

 
I understand the support from underemployed victims of globalization who view him as their only possible shot at a better future, because in their minds they simply have nothing to lose.  And white supremacists.  I can't fathom why anyone else would vote for this guy.

 
I do think it's kind of funny that "supporting the Republican nominee" these days means repeating that exact phrase when asked directly, and absolutely nothing else.

"Will you campaign for Donald Trump?"

"No."

"Will you fundraise for him?"

"No."

"Will you at least encourage your supporters to vote for him?"

"No."

"Why not?"

"Because he is a monster, and will do irreparable harm to this nation if elected."

"Does this mean you no longer support him?"

"I support the Republican nominee."

 
Hmmmm.  Interesting.  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON —

In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”


In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Courtcolleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite,

“our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
3C's said:
The crazy thing is there's still a ton of people who "support" him or plan to vote for him. None of this matters. It doesn't matter that he says racist or incendiary things. It doesn't matter that he has no clue on foreign policy. It doesn't matter that he's (been accused of being) a scam artist. It doesn't matter that the economy would struggle if he does the things he claims he would do. It doesn't matter that he lies and flip-flops. Saw something today where some gun group endorsed him basically because HILLARY! After nearly 8 years of Obama these people still think "they're coming for our guns!"
Click to expand...
Hillary want the law changed so gun makers/companies can be sued if an idiot shoots someone with a gun the company made.   If this is made possible & Ruger gets a multi million dollar judgment against them then gun manufacturing companies will probably go out of business.   IMO.  So yea, they are kind of coming after guns. 

 
Capella said:
I do think the theory of him dropping out is a legitimate one. Actually, I would consider it more likely than him winning. 
Click to expand...
He'll drop out or be pushed out.  I just can't see the GOP letting him on that convention stage as the face of the Republican party.  Those things are one big celebration of the nominee of their party.  Adoring crowds, people from the various states gleefully calling him "the next president of the United States", party big shots giving speeches touting the nominee and the party, balloons falling from the sky...  They're going to do that for Trump after all that's happened and all the insanity that's sure to come the next 6 weeks?  They're going to do that for a guy they've all but acknowledged is racist?  They just can't do it.  It would look soooooo bad. 

What kind of betting odds can I get for Paul Ryan?  :oldunsure:

 
Trump's behavior threatens his nomination


By Former Rep. John LeBoutillier (R-N.Y.), contributor


The behavior of the GOP's supposed nominee threatens his nomination at the Republican convention.

1. On May 3, Donald Trump effectively became the GOP nominee. Since then, he has not grown as a candidate nor has his campaign evolved into anything close to a general-election- ready political machine.

2. To the contrary, Trump is deteriorating as a candidate.

3. He screams into the microphone at public rallies.

4. He tweets incessantly at all hours of the day and night.

5. He twice excoriated Gov. Susana Martinez, the two-term Republican governor of New Mexico who also happens to be chair of the Republican Governor's Association.

6. Then, in an apparent reversal, he said he "respects" her and that a meeting is in the works.

7. And then he has used his position as the putative GOP nominee to campaign against the federal judge presiding over his Trump University civil lawsuit.

8. A question: why is the Republican presidential nominee spending time on a civil lawsuit at all? Why isn't this — and a lot of other business stuff — being handled by others while The Donald focuses solely on his campaign?

9. Why is he taking time in July to go open a golf course in Scotland?

10. And as for his campaign, reports from inside indicate a sense of panic amid vicious infighting, with only two aides having face time with the candidate.

11. Morale is reportedly low; they are having trouble hiring good people to flesh out a national campaign.

12. The staff inside has the same day-to-day fear that other Republicans have: What is Trump going to say today?

13. Unlike most campaigns, which plan a "message of the day," with Trump it's whatever comes out his mouth at any moment.

14. Here is what MSNBC is reporting:

Republicans working to elect Trump describe a bare-bones effort debilitated by infighting, a lack of staff to carry out basic functions, minimal coordination with allies and a message that’s prisoner to Trump's momentary whims.

"Bottom line, you can hire all the top people in the world, but to what end? Trump does what he wants," a source close to the campaign said."

15. Now, let me ask you this: What is a political party?

16. It is a collection of individuals who share a general political philosophy, including nominated candidates for public office, and they all join together to try to run the government according to that philosophy.

17. The current Republican Party is a total mess. They have a nominee in Trump who has legitimately earned the 1,237-plus delegates to be the presidential nominee.

18. But most of the other nominees for the Senate, House and other offices are scared to death every time Trump opens his mouth.

19. They have no idea what he is going to say — or how they are going to have to react to it.

20. Trump does not talk to anyone; nor does he listen.

21. Instead, he watches TV and then criticizes anyone who dares to critique him.

22. The case of Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the judge handling the Trump University case, has thrown all these other GOP candidates into a sense of panic.

23. Look at the following from The Washington Post:

Republican leaders who spent the past month reluctantly hitching their horses to Trump are realizing that he might be marching the party over a cliff after all. A growing number of GOP heavyweights fear that Trump's spate of hostile remarks towards and about minorities have imperiled his campaign, costing him a five-week head start on Clinton that they hoped would be used to build party unity ahead of the general election. ... Concerns have increased as Trump continues to furiously peddle his assertion that the Latino judge overseeing the Trump University fraud case should recuse himself because of his "Mexican heritage."

24. On last Friday, June 2, the new Reuters-Ipsos poll of likely general election voters showed a surprising result: likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton at 46.5 percent and Trump at 35 percent. If this is not an outlier — if, indeed, Trump is in decline due to his recent behavior — then things between now and Cleveland in July are going to become dicey for The Donald.

25. You will start to read leaks of Republicans musing that "we are committing political suicide if we keep going down this road."

26. Many of the delegates that are legally "pledged" to Trump are in fact not Trump acolytes — they are party people.

27. It is entirely possible that they will begin to explore ways to get out of their obligation to vote on the first and/or second ballot for Trump.

28. All this is predicated on Trump continuing the downward spiral he's put himself in.

29. It is also possible that he will figure out that things are not working, and will self-correct; if so, he will indeed be officially nominated on July 21.

30. With six weeks to go until the GOP convention in Cleveland, it is up to Donald Trump: He must either pull himself together and lead the Republican Party in a responsible manner, or else be prepared to have a major mutiny on his hands.
Click to expand...

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/282442-trumps-behavior-threatens-his-nomination#.V1a7iPePYSY.twitter

- I don't think we can rule out a mutiny at the convention at this point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Higgs said:
Hmmmm.  Interesting.  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON —

In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Courtcolleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite,

“our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


- Third time I'm asking this: using Trump's desired rule, do you think that Justice Sotomayor would have to recuse herself from every case involving the Trump White House?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
irishidiot said:
Hillary want the law changed so gun makers/companies can be sued if an idiot shoots someone with a gun the company made.   If this is made possible & Ruger gets a multi million dollar judgment against them then gun manufacturing companies will probably go out of business.   IMO.  So yea, they are kind of coming after guns. 
Click to expand...
She can't just change a law. If she tried via EO it would end up in court and be shot down. So no, they are not and have not come for anyone's guns.

 
3C's said:
She can't just change a law. If she tried via EO it would end up in court and be shot down. So no, they are not and have not come for anyone's guns.
Click to expand...
Nope she can't, but she would if she could & will try using any means necessary.   I'm not saying she would succeed, but it's what she wants to do.

 
irishidiot said:
Hillary want the law changed so gun makers/companies can be sued if an idiot shoots someone with a gun the company made.   If this is made possible & Ruger gets a multi million dollar judgment against them then gun manufacturing companies will probably go out of business.   IMO.  So yea, they are kind of coming after guns. 
Click to expand...
Has the ability to sue cigarette companies put tobacco out of business? 

 
Hmmm.  This guy must have been reading my posts...  http://spectator.org/trump-is-right-the-shame-of-paul-ryan-and-mitch-mcconnell/

The race-driven San Diego La Raza Association is exactly what’s wrong with the legal system.


The GOP Establishment is in full flight.

No Abraham Lincolns here.

In a shameful haste to embrace identity politics, the latter the political descendant of slavery and segregation, Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have stunningly given thumbs up to a judge who has made no bones about injecting his ethnic heritage into his role as a lawyer and judge.

In a broadside against Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who presiding over the case against Trump University (a case in itself riddled with bad judicial decision-making as the judge has assigned the case to a notoriously Clinton-supporting law firm — more of which later this week), Trump has assailed the Indiana-born judge as “of Mexican heritage” who has “an inherent conflict of interest.”

The response from the Speaker? “It’s reasoning I don’t relate to. I completely disagree with the thinking behind that.” Said McConnell: “I think it’s a big mistake for our party to write off Latino Americans.” Hello? Speaker Ryan can’t relate to standing up to fight racism? Who, Senator McConnell, is writing off Latino Americans? And isn’t it time to get right with Lincoln and write off racism — aka in the 21st century, “identity politics”? Appallingly in the case of Ryan, his latest comments embracing out and out race-driven lawyering and judging comes only weeks after he said he stood for the “Party of Lincoln, Reagan, and Kemp.” Well that didn’t last long. Somewhere Abe, Ronnie, and Jack are baffled as to why their defender has suddenly thrown them over the side to embrace the absolute worst of racial politics.

Well, yes, “equating ethnicity with judicial bias” is offensive. Yet the WSJ has not a solitary word revealing to readers that Judge Curiel has been actively associated with the racially-centric San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association — a group entirely devoted to “equating ethnicity with judicial bias.” An association Curiel listed on his questionnaire filed with the Senate Judiciary Committee. The group, as I noted over at NewsBusters, specifically states its mission on its website as follows:


Our purpose is to advance the cause of equality, empowerment and justice for Latino attorneys and the Latino community in San Diego County through service and advocacy.




Note. The group supports “equality, empowerment and justice” not for all attorneys in San Diego — only for “Latino attorneys.”

Listing eight “goals” of the group, every one of which are ethnocentric, the first three reading:


  • Increase the overall number of Latinos in the legal profession.
  • Encourage and support Latino and Latina judicial candidates to apply to the bench.
  • Advocate for the promotion and retention of Latino and Latina attorneys and judicial officers.


Note well goal number two — “Encourage and support Latino and Latina judicial candidates to apply to the bench.” In other words? The group wants to put not qualified attorneys of any color or gender on the bench. No, the insistence is a racially-oriented drive to put only one group — a group pre-selected by ethnic heritage on the bench. (Can you imagine the uproar if the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had belonged to a “white attorneys association”? Answer: Yes, you can.) Why might this be? The answer is obvious.

In a day and age when the working assumption by the Left is that all minorities, Latinos in this case, are liberal, the way to liberal decisions is by backing openly race-centric judges of Latino heritage. To get decisions from the bench that are geared to supporting Latinos — not all Americans — but Latinos only.

This idea, by the way, is certainly not limited to Latinos. Recall the demand that retiring Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall be replaced by a black nominee. President George H.W. Bush obliged with Judge Clarence Thomas. Thomas was quickly attacked by liberals the moment they realized he was a conservative. He is to this day attacked for being an “Uncle Tom” and a “traitor” to his race because the working assumption is that if you are black you are a liberal. And so it is with Latinos — and in this case Judge Curiel.

Most assuredly, Judge Gonzalo Curiel has gone out of his way to not only openly tie himself to this group of racially directed lawyers — but to participate in the left-wing agenda favored so deeply by leftist race-driven Hispanics. In 2014 the Judge served as a member of the group’s 2014 Scholarship Selection Committee, which in turn awarded a $1,500 scholarship to a self-advertised “undocumented.” Think of that for a moment. The very first act of this student was to break American law, and Judge Curiel awards him a scholarship — for law school!

In a blink Ryan and McConnell have shown exactly why Donald Trump has blown away the Republican Establishment in the GOP primary season. The GOP Establishment has lay down with the flea-infected mangy old political dog of racism — a left wing dependable from the days when Democratic Party co-founders Jefferson and Jackson allied the new-born party with slave owners. Later to turn into a permanent racial party appealing to every race-centered group from segregationists to Al Sharpton and today’s Black Lives Matter, not to mention various “La Raza” oriented groups of varying pedigree. As the GOP Establishment takes it cues from the Left — hence the charge that GOP Establishment types are “Democrat-lite” or RINOS on issues ranging from the economy to social issues — so now are they mimicking the Left on race, signing on for the out-and-out racism of “identity politics.”

Take a look here to see just how this game of race and gender is played by leftist California judges — and Judge Curiel. (Hat tip: Attorney Mark Pulliam, who formerly practiced in San Diego and now calls Texas home.)

Recall that on his Senate Judiciary Committee form, Curiel said that he was a member of the “California Judges Association.” And back there a mere year ago in January of 2015, the California Judges Association was enthusiastically supportive of a decision from the California Supreme Court that ruled, as reported by Fox News, this:


California’s Supreme Court voted Friday to prohibit state judges from belonging to the Boy Scouts on grounds that the group discriminates against gays.

The court said its seven justices unanimously voted to heed a recommendation by its ethics advisory committee barring judges’ affiliation with the organization.



Got that? It’s OK for Judge Curiel and a small army of California judges and lawyers to belong to the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association — a group openly discriminating against non-Latinos — but it’s not OK for a California judge to belong to the Boy Scouts — the Boy Scouts! — because “the group discriminates against gays.”

It doesn’t get more racist than that.

Let’s be blunt. There’s no room for identity politics in the party of Lincoln. The fact that Paul Ryan (Paul Ryan!) and Mitch McConnell would stand up and defend outright race-driven politics is utterly disgraceful.

Here, to refresh, is Abraham Lincoln himself on the subject of race. Lincoln, as noted in Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals, said he hoped to “‘penetrate the human soul’ until…‘all this quibbling about this man and the other man — this race and that race and the other race being inferior’” was gone from America. In more recent times, there is President John F. Kennedy telling the nation in his televised address over the racial turmoil in 1963 Birmingham, Alabama that “race has no place in American life or law.” And so it doesn’t.

Now today’s GOP Establishment, led by Speaker Ryan and Senator McConnell, are saying that Donald Trump, a defendant in the rigged trial that is the witch hunt for Trump University, must be quiet about this insistent racialization of the federal bench and the law itself. Trump is being told that now that he is the soon-to-be heir to the leadership of Lincoln’s party he must sign on to the idea that it’s perfectly OK to insist that race has a decided priority in both American life and law and that he, Donald Trump, as a defendant has no right to call attention to something that left-wing racial advocates boast of freely. Recall that when it came to light that then Supreme Court Obama-nominee Sonia Sotomayor was found to be saying in speeches that a “wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male,” leftist were thrilled.

Now? Donald Trump is calling out this flat-out racism by targeting a judge for what might be called the judge’s “wise Latino” ways? Suddenly the GOP Establishment is attacking —Trump?

This is shameful. But totally in character for the GOP Leadership in Congress that long ago abandoned principle for political correctness.

Speaker Ryan and Senator McConnell should be embarrassed.

More to come on the rigged case against Trump University.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
irishidiot said:
Hillary want the law changed so gun makers/companies can be sued if an idiot shoots someone with a gun the company made.   If this is made possible & Ruger gets a multi million dollar judgment against them then gun manufacturing companies will probably go out of business.   IMO.  So yea, they are kind of coming after guns. 
Click to expand...
1. Hillary doesn't want the law changed, because

2) Gun makers can already be sued if an idiot shoots someone

III. Which has been the case for the entire history of our country, and yet

D: Gun manufacturing companies have not gone out of business, because

2. Just because you can sue someone doesn't mean you automatically win

So basically every part of your statement is incorrect.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
- Third time I'm asking this: using Trump's desired rule, do you think that Justice Sotomayor would have to recuse herself from every case involving the Trump White House?
Click to expand...
I don't know enough about her to make that call.  But what I see right now gives me major pause.  My God that article is laced with bias - she's out front and open about it.  I commend her for her honesty at least.  And her little spiel about judges making policy???  Oh my goodness.  Only a goof like Obama would think of nominating someone this bad.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Why won't the Trump lawyers file a motion to recuse?
Click to expand...
Maybe because he knows that the Judge who would decide on the potential bias issue is the Judge himself that is being accused?  I'm not arguing that Trump has a winning hand.  I'm arguing that he has raised a legitimate issue that everyone should be concerned about.  Maybe it's time to rethink judicial bias.  We always talk about it from the other standpoint of "systemic racism".  Eh.  It's just the double standard that drives me up the wall.  Always has and always will.  My brain is wired to comprehend fairness in a consistent way.  I know I probably take it to obnoxious levels in here, but what I'm really railing against identity politics.  America needs to move past all this racial garbage, and I believe with even fiber of my being that the only way to do that going forward is to drop all racial identifications, groups, and labels.  Why can't we just call everyone Americans?  It's really pretty simple.  Like JFK said, “race has no place in American life or law.”  Let's finally live up to that ideal and we'll see things completely turn around.  I guarantee it.

 
Higgs said:
Maybe because he knows that the Judge who would decide on the potential bias issue is the Judge himself that is being accused?  I'm not arguing that Trump has a winning hand.  I'm arguing that he has raised a legitimate issue that everyone should be concerned about.  Maybe it's time to rethink judicial bias.  We always talk about it from the other standpoint of "systemic racism".  Eh.  It's just the double standard that drives me up the wall.  Always has and always will.  My brain is wired to comprehend fairness in a consistent way.  I know I probably take it to obnoxious levels in here, but what I'm really railing against identity politics.  America needs to move past all this racial garbage, and I believe with even fiber of my being that the only way to do that going forward is to drop all racial identifications, groups, and labels.  Why can't we just call everyone Americans?  It's really pretty simple.  Like JFK said, “race has no place in American life or law.”  Let's finally live up to that ideal and we'll see things completely turn around.  I guarantee it.
Click to expand...
Of course you don't see the irony in what you just wrote.

 
Higgs said:
Maybe because he knows that the Judge who would decide on the potential bias issue is the Judge himself that is being accused?  I'm not arguing that Trump has a winning hand.  I'm arguing that he has raised a legitimate issue that everyone should be concerned about.  Maybe it's time to rethink judicial bias.  We always talk about it from the other standpoint of "systemic racism".  Eh.  It's just the double standard that drives me up the wall.  Always has and always will.  My brain is wired to comprehend fairness in a consistent way.  I know I probably take it to obnoxious levels in here, but what I'm really railing against identity politics.  America needs to move past all this racial garbage, and I believe with even fiber of my being that the only way to do that going forward is to drop all racial identifications, groups, and labels.  Why can't we just call everyone Americans?  It's really pretty simple.  Like JFK said, “race has no place in American life or law.”  Let's finally live up to that ideal and we'll see things completely turn around.  I guarantee it.
Click to expand...
What double standard?

And its not a legitimate point at all.

The "I possibly pissed off a judge because of his heritage" is not a legit point for recusal.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Higgs said:
Maybe because he knows that the Judge who would decide on the potential bias issue is the Judge himself that is being accused?  I'm not arguing that Trump has a winning hand.  I'm arguing that he has raised a legitimate issue that everyone should be concerned about.  Maybe it's time to rethink judicial bias.  We always talk about it from the other standpoint of "systemic racism".  Eh.  It's just the double standard that drives me up the wall.  Always has and always will.  My brain is wired to comprehend fairness in a consistent way.  I know I probably take it to obnoxious levels in here, but what I'm really railing against identity politics.  America needs to move past all this racial garbage, and I believe with even fiber of my being that the only way to do that going forward is to drop all racial identifications, groups, and labels.  Why can't we just call everyone Americans?  It's really pretty simple.  Like JFK said, “race has no place in American life or law.”  Let's finally live up to that ideal and we'll see things completely turn around.  I guarantee it.
Click to expand...
- Thanks for answering.

A Biased Judge? Donald Trump Has Claimed It Before

...

The year was 2008, and Mr. Trump’s arguments closely resembled those he is now making against Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, a federal judge in California overseeing a class action lawsuit against the defunct Trump University.

Today, Mr. Trump claims that Judge Curiel, who was born in Indiana, is incapable of objectively judging the case because of his Mexican heritage and record of being, in Mr. Trump’s words, “a hater of Donald Trump.”

Between 2008 and 2010, Mr. Trump’s lawyers went even further — turning angry accusations into an unusual, elbows-out legal campaign to remove not one but two New York judges who oversaw the lawsuit. One judge was an African-American man, the other a white woman.

... The New York case stands out. Mr. Trump and his lawyers singled out Justice Richard B. Lowe III, who was first elected to the New York Supreme Court in 2003.

Throughout the case, which involved a Trump real estate development on the West Side of Manhattan and a partnership with Hong Kong businessmen, Justice Lowe issued orders Mr. Trump’s lawyers said were biased.

By the end of the case, Mr. Trump’s top lawyer, Jay Goldberg, apologized for seeking to oust Justice Lowe from the proceedings, promising to never level such accusations against him again.

...
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/us/politics/donald-trump-judge-history.html?_r=1

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sammy3469 said:
Paul Ryan supports a racist! 

He's as dopey for that statement as Trump is for making it. 
Click to expand...
I would think Paul Ryan would have an excellent chance at defeating Hillary in 2020 if he doesn't go down with the ship here, but it appears he's willing to for some reason.  :loco:

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Yo Mama
**** OFFICIAL FFA 2025-2026 Fake NBA Draft **** - Happy Ranks-Giving!!
19 20 21
Replies
1K
Views
14K
Master of Subservience
Master of Subservience
DA RAIDERS
Pick a fantasy team for the Tour de France. There will be prizes!
Replies
35
Views
3K
DA RAIDERS
DA RAIDERS
kutta
***Official 2025 Footballguy T-Shirt Exchange - OCT 12 SHIPPING DEADLINE (extended 2 weeks)***
3 4 5
Replies
226
Views
7K
Dennis Castro
Dennis Castro

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Back
Top