|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States42010 Posts
On June 08 2016 07:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 06:45 Doodsmack wrote:On June 08 2016 06:42 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 06:25 puerk wrote:On June 08 2016 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 05:59 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 05:47 josephmcjoe wrote:On June 08 2016 05:29 Doodsmack wrote:On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote:Bad La Raza! Bad! Again! MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler + Trump's argument is not concerned with La Raza (even if his surrogates or spokeswoman brought up La Raza after the fact - "only Trump speaks for Trump", as he says). His argument is very simple, the judge is Mexican and therefore biased against Trump. Which I guess is an admission that Mexican voters will be, too. On the plus side, if it weren't for Testie this thread would probably have about 1,000 less pages. It's all about that mischievous fun though  . I too think it's pretty simple, but not even close to your take. The judge belongs to group called the Hispanic National Bar Association that called for a national boycott of Trump's various enterprises in 2015. Trump didn't feel he could get a fair shake from this judge, and he said so. If this is so clear, why have Trumps laywers not asked for a different judge? Would be a slam dunk. Because the showing required to disqualify a judge is really high. how high/low would you like it to be? is curiel qualified to lead a fair trial in the case on the trump university, in your mind? and on a meta level, do you consider the existence of racially organized associations striving for equality by promoting themselfs, as a problem in america? The standard is fine. It should be tough to disqualify judges. Making too easy would wreck the judiciary, which is already under serious strain. That said, just because judges don't have biases or prejudices sufficient to warrant disqualification does not mean that they do not have biases and prejudices that materially affect the outcomes of cases. Any attorney who has ever litigated a case knows otherwise. Though I haven't looked at the merits of the Trump U case and why Judge Curiel released the records, I fully expect that he is predisposed to being adverse to Trump. To think otherwise is incredibly naive. Setting aside the group associations, do you think he's adverse on the basis of ethnicity? Are Mexicans biased against Trump due to his wall plan? I don't know if I'd say that he is biased on the basis of his ethnicity (or that he's biased at all), but the fact that he's of Mexican heritage taken by itself certainly indicates that Judge Curiel is more likely to be biased against Trump. I can say the same thing about his professional affiliations, his profession overall, and the fact that he was appointed by Clinton. Who do you think is more likely to be sympathetic to Trump? Judge Curiel or a white/WASP judge who is a Bush appointee and member of the NRA? As I infamously have remarked, profiling works.
Profiling works in the absence of other information. If you showed me two guys and told me one was a member of the IRA I'd pick the white ginger with the Irish accent. Similarly if you showed me a WASP and a Mexican and told me one didn't like Trump I might suspect the Mexican. In this case we have no reason to assume either dislikes Trump so jumping to "one is more likely to than the other and therefore one does because profiling works" is insanity. Furthermore, given this guy is a judge we should assume that his decisions will be impartial and rooted in the law until we see otherwise. He isn't just a Mexican (well, he isn't even a Mexican but let's assume he is), he is a Mexican judge, profiling him based only on his race and ignoring his attributes that contradict that profile is also insanity. There is so much room for actual knowledge in this case that resorting to profiling is absurd.
You can't just say "profiling works" and leave it at that. It doesn't work that way. As Trump is always telling us, the Hispanic population of America adore him.
|
|
|
I wonder whether the case being heard in November is ultimately better (he doesn't have to deal with a negative ruling during a campaign) or worse (he has the spectre of the case the whole time) for him.
|
Lot of deflection and pointless words, not a single fact present.
So yeah. He has jack shit and was blowing steam for news air time. Guess something he said is finally coming back to bite him.
|
Lol, a complete 180 from his interviews. The fact this came out today just shows he realized he stepped on a mine and is trying some damage control by giving arguments he never made when confronted on the issue.
|
On June 08 2016 07:10 oBlade wrote:I wonder whether the case being heard in November is ultimately better (he doesn't have to deal with a negative ruling during a campaign) or worse (he has the spectre of the case the whole time) for him.
Better because this will blow over before the election while a negative ruling shortly before election day could do serious damage.
|
On June 08 2016 06:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I find kind of amusing the disarray of the republican leaders, who see years of effort to try to win minorities vote and promote against all evidences the idea that the GOP is not a fundamentally racist party of resentful white men.. Not only are they going to get steamrolled, but they are losing years and years of hard work.
What evidence is there?
Whenever I see someone say that I know the person saying it is incompetent or a troll.
|
On June 08 2016 07:12 On_Slaught wrote:Lol, a complete 180 from his interviews. The fact this came out today just shows he realized he stepped on a mine and is trying some damage control by giving arguments he never made when confronted on the issue.
Paul Ryan said what Trump said was definitely racist. That's the point when you say "Shit, I dun goofed". Honestly, I'm surprised Paul Ryan said that. I think Paul Ryan, in doing so, is making it so that he can bail on Trump after the next thing he says. If Trump does something truly awful again, I think Ryan will rescind his endorsement. He all but did so already.
|
On June 08 2016 07:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 07:12 On_Slaught wrote:Lol, a complete 180 from his interviews. The fact this came out today just shows he realized he stepped on a mine and is trying some damage control by giving arguments he never made when confronted on the issue. Paul Ryan said what Trump said was definitely racist. That's the point when you say "Shit, I dun goofed". Honestly, I'm surprised Paul Ryan said that. I think Paul Ryan, in doing so, is making it so that he can bail on Trump after the next thing he says. If Trump does something truly awful again, I think Ryan will rescind his endorsement. He all but did so already.
It has been very obvious that Ryan doesn't want anything to do with Trump and only gave his endorsement very reluctantly for the good of the party.
Ryan commenting negatively after so many other prominent Republicans have already done so says nothing.
|
Looking at this election it is clear both ideological factions have gone certified coo-coo.
The modern American "right" looks just about ready to board an Ark Airplane, fill it with super WASPs then nuke the mainland from orbit and pretend it was God who did it.
The modern American "left" is trying to convince people they can understand how it feels to have spent all your life carrying a penis and/or vagina around while also mandating everyone be of equal height, length, size, shape and color.
You guys not only need a 3rd party, you (we all) need a brand new way of thinking suited for the new Millenium. Right now it's like Muslim vs. Christians back in the 12th century. Es no bueno.
|
On June 08 2016 07:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 07:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 06:45 Doodsmack wrote:On June 08 2016 06:42 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 06:25 puerk wrote:On June 08 2016 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 05:59 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 05:47 josephmcjoe wrote:On June 08 2016 05:29 Doodsmack wrote:On June 08 2016 04:02 SK.Testie wrote:Bad La Raza! Bad! Again! MSM: They have no connection! oh shit. They do but surely it's meaningless! + Show Spoiler + Trump's argument is not concerned with La Raza (even if his surrogates or spokeswoman brought up La Raza after the fact - "only Trump speaks for Trump", as he says). His argument is very simple, the judge is Mexican and therefore biased against Trump. Which I guess is an admission that Mexican voters will be, too. On the plus side, if it weren't for Testie this thread would probably have about 1,000 less pages. It's all about that mischievous fun though . I too think it's pretty simple, but not even close to your take. The judge belongs to group called the Hispanic National Bar Association that called for a national boycott of Trump's various enterprises in 2015. Trump didn't feel he could get a fair shake from this judge, and he said so. If this is so clear, why have Trumps laywers not asked for a different judge? Would be a slam dunk. Because the showing required to disqualify a judge is really high. how high/low would you like it to be? is curiel qualified to lead a fair trial in the case on the trump university, in your mind? and on a meta level, do you consider the existence of racially organized associations striving for equality by promoting themselfs, as a problem in america? The standard is fine. It should be tough to disqualify judges. Making too easy would wreck the judiciary, which is already under serious strain. That said, just because judges don't have biases or prejudices sufficient to warrant disqualification does not mean that they do not have biases and prejudices that materially affect the outcomes of cases. Any attorney who has ever litigated a case knows otherwise. Though I haven't looked at the merits of the Trump U case and why Judge Curiel released the records, I fully expect that he is predisposed to being adverse to Trump. To think otherwise is incredibly naive. Setting aside the group associations, do you think he's adverse on the basis of ethnicity? Are Mexicans biased against Trump due to his wall plan? I don't know if I'd say that he is biased on the basis of his ethnicity (or that he's biased at all), but the fact that he's of Mexican heritage taken by itself certainly indicates that Judge Curiel is more likely to be biased against Trump. I can say the same thing about his professional affiliations, his profession overall, and the fact that he was appointed by Clinton. Who do you think is more likely to be sympathetic to Trump? Judge Curiel or a white/WASP judge who is a Bush appointee and member of the NRA? As I infamously have remarked, profiling works. Profiling works in the absence of other information. If you showed me two guys and told me one was a member of the IRA I'd pick the white ginger with the Irish accent. Similarly if you showed me a WASP and a Mexican and told me one didn't like Trump I might suspect the Mexican. In this case we have no reason to assume either dislikes Trump so jumping to "one is more likely to than the other and therefore one does because profiling works" is insanity. Furthermore, given this guy is a judge we should assume that his decisions will be impartial and rooted in the law until we see otherwise. He isn't just a Mexican (well, he isn't even a Mexican but let's assume he is), he is a Mexican judge, profiling him based only on his race and ignoring his attributes that contradict that profile is also insanity. There is so much room for actual knowledge in this case that resorting to profiling is absurd. You can't just say "profiling works" and leave it at that. It doesn't work that way. As Trump is always telling us, the Hispanic population of America adore him.
The bolded above means nothing. Every argument that an attorney makes to a judge is "rooted in the law," and every opinion issued by a judge is similarly rooted in the law. It is entirely possible to have two completely inconsistent rulings on a given issue, where each ruling is "rooted in the law." Judges have a ton of legal gray area and inherent discretion to work with when making their rulings. Bias and predisposition play very large roles in how their conclusions are formed.
|
On June 08 2016 07:11 Gorsameth wrote:Lot of deflection and pointless words, not a single fact present. So yeah. He has jack shit and was blowing steam for news air time. Guess something he said is finally coming back to bite him.
Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue
How is this not relevant?
|
It's only a matter of time before the next Trump fuck up. He will continue to attack his critics and the media will continue to ask provocative questions and he will take the bait. He can't help himself.
|
I wonder who wrote that for him. Maybe Paul Ryan?
|
On June 08 2016 07:12 On_Slaught wrote:Lol, a complete 180 from his interviews. The fact this came out today just shows he realized he stepped on a mine and is trying some damage control by giving arguments he never made when confronted on the issue.
I think you would benefit from applying the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity to how you judge others, especially others you have a confirmation bias to judge negatively.
|
On June 08 2016 07:34 On_Slaught wrote:
It's only a matter of time before the next Trump fuck up. He will continue to attack his critics and the media will continue to ask provokative questions and he will take the bait. He can't help himself.
You mean the next friday-night-media scandal of making shit up to get high ratings/views?
You people fall for it every time. People just love having a villain to hate.
|
On June 08 2016 07:34 On_Slaught wrote:
It's only a matter of time before the next Trump fuck up. He will continue to attack his critics and the media will continue to ask provokative questions and he will take the bait. He can't help himself.
We can call them fuck-ups, but a few more and he'll probably have a 15 point lead over Clinton.
|
On June 08 2016 07:34 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 07:11 Gorsameth wrote:Lot of deflection and pointless words, not a single fact present. So yeah. He has jack shit and was blowing steam for news air time. Guess something he said is finally coming back to bite him. Show nested quote +Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue How is this not relevant?
Again, if the judge displays obvious bias a motion can be filed to have him replaced. If big judicial mistakes are made (potentially the one you highlighted) an Appeal can correct them.
What you don't do is make no formal protest and instead slam a judge infront of the national media from your position as Presidential candidate.
|
United States42010 Posts
On June 08 2016 07:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 07:08 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 07:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 06:45 Doodsmack wrote:On June 08 2016 06:42 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 06:25 puerk wrote:On June 08 2016 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 05:59 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 05:47 josephmcjoe wrote:On June 08 2016 05:29 Doodsmack wrote:[quote] Trump's argument is not concerned with La Raza (even if his surrogates or spokeswoman brought up La Raza after the fact - "only Trump speaks for Trump", as he says). His argument is very simple, the judge is Mexican and therefore biased against Trump. Which I guess is an admission that Mexican voters will be, too. On the plus side, if it weren't for Testie this thread would probably have about 1,000 less pages. It's all about that mischievous fun though . I too think it's pretty simple, but not even close to your take. The judge belongs to group called the Hispanic National Bar Association that called for a national boycott of Trump's various enterprises in 2015. Trump didn't feel he could get a fair shake from this judge, and he said so. If this is so clear, why have Trumps laywers not asked for a different judge? Would be a slam dunk. Because the showing required to disqualify a judge is really high. how high/low would you like it to be? is curiel qualified to lead a fair trial in the case on the trump university, in your mind? and on a meta level, do you consider the existence of racially organized associations striving for equality by promoting themselfs, as a problem in america? The standard is fine. It should be tough to disqualify judges. Making too easy would wreck the judiciary, which is already under serious strain. That said, just because judges don't have biases or prejudices sufficient to warrant disqualification does not mean that they do not have biases and prejudices that materially affect the outcomes of cases. Any attorney who has ever litigated a case knows otherwise. Though I haven't looked at the merits of the Trump U case and why Judge Curiel released the records, I fully expect that he is predisposed to being adverse to Trump. To think otherwise is incredibly naive. Setting aside the group associations, do you think he's adverse on the basis of ethnicity? Are Mexicans biased against Trump due to his wall plan? I don't know if I'd say that he is biased on the basis of his ethnicity (or that he's biased at all), but the fact that he's of Mexican heritage taken by itself certainly indicates that Judge Curiel is more likely to be biased against Trump. I can say the same thing about his professional affiliations, his profession overall, and the fact that he was appointed by Clinton. Who do you think is more likely to be sympathetic to Trump? Judge Curiel or a white/WASP judge who is a Bush appointee and member of the NRA? As I infamously have remarked, profiling works. Profiling works in the absence of other information. If you showed me two guys and told me one was a member of the IRA I'd pick the white ginger with the Irish accent. Similarly if you showed me a WASP and a Mexican and told me one didn't like Trump I might suspect the Mexican. In this case we have no reason to assume either dislikes Trump so jumping to "one is more likely to than the other and therefore one does because profiling works" is insanity. Furthermore, given this guy is a judge we should assume that his decisions will be impartial and rooted in the law until we see otherwise. He isn't just a Mexican (well, he isn't even a Mexican but let's assume he is), he is a Mexican judge, profiling him based only on his race and ignoring his attributes that contradict that profile is also insanity. There is so much room for actual knowledge in this case that resorting to profiling is absurd. You can't just say "profiling works" and leave it at that. It doesn't work that way. As Trump is always telling us, the Hispanic population of America adore him. The bolded above means nothing. Every argument that an attorney makes to a judge is "rooted in the law," and every opinion issued by a judge is similarly rooted in the law. It is entirely possible to have two completely inconsistent rulings on a given issue, where each ruling is "rooted in the law." Judges have a ton of legal gray area and inherent discretion to work with when making their rulings. Bias and predisposition play very large roles in how their conclusions are formed.
Then show the bias. Right now it's no better than saying xDaunt is a rapist because he's a man and profiling works. Well, if you gave me a xDaunt and an infant and told me one of them was definitely a rapist, I'd pick xDaunt but that's not how shit works. You made a huge leap from "more likely to be biased", as indeed you are more likely to be a rapist, to "is biased".
It just doesn't work that way.
|
On June 08 2016 07:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I wonder who wrote that for him. Maybe Paul Ryan?
He was clearly told to knock it off or else. This won’t be the last time either. Trump can’t help himself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.sli.mg/4lhmM0.jpg)
