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.
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?
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.
The media makes shit up like this all the time to get good ratings and now they want to act like they have the moral highground. It's laughable at best.
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.
What the fuck are you talking about? I haven't said that Judge Curiel is biased against Trump. I have only said that there are numerous indicators that suggest that he could be. And even presuming that he biased against Trump, then the issue becomes whether the bias has played a role in his decisions, which I have offered no comment on (and won't, because I don't have the time to look at the record).
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?
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.
The media makes shit up like this all the time to get good ratings and now they want to act like they have the moral highground. It's laughable at best.
Paul Ryan said the remarks were classic racism. It seems like everyone but Trump is on the same page on this one.
On June 08 2016 05:59 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] 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.
What the fuck are you talking about? I haven't said that Judge Curiel is biased against Trump. I have only said that there are numerous indicators that suggest that he could be. And even presuming that he biased against Trump, then the issue becomes whether the bias has played a role in his decisions, which I have offered no comment on (and won't, because I don't have the time to look at the record).
You wrote this
On June 08 2016 07:47 xDaunt wrote: 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.
and I pointed out the total idiocy of saying "more likely to be biased" as if it means anything and the absurdity of the argument that "profiling works" in the absence of any other information.
You tried to spin substance out of air to flesh out what Trump said and I pierced it. That's what the fuck I am talking about. "More likely to be biased" isn't biased and given that Trump is making accusations of actual bias your suggestions that he might be more likely to be biased are no more relevant, or likely, than my equally fleshed out claim that you're more likely to be a rapist.
Are you a rapist? Or would you suggest that the whole "more likely to be a rapist" line of reasoning is completely retarded? Because I think it is, but it's the line of reasoning you're using to attempt to defend Trump's indefensible statements.
"I hear more and more Mexicans talking about la raza—to build up their pride, you know," Chavez told me. "Some people don't look at it as racism, but when you say 'la raza,' you are saying an anti-gringo thing, and it won't stop there. Today it's anti-gringo, tomorrow it will be anti-Negro, and the day after it will be anti-Filipino, anti-Puerto Rican. And then it will be anti-poor-Mexican, and anti-darker-skinned Mexican. ... La raza is a very dangerous concept. I speak very strongly against it among the chicanos." - Cesar Chavez
"That's one of the reasons he is so upset about la raza. The same Mexicans that ten years ago were talking about themselves as Spaniards are coming on real strong these days as Mexicans. Everyone should be proud of what they are, of course, but race is only skin-deep. It's phony and it comes out of frustration; the la raza people are not secure. They look upon Cesar as their 'dumb Mexican' leader; he's become their saint. But he doesn't want any part of it. He said to me just the other day, 'Can't they understand that that's just the way Hitler started?' A few months ago the Ford Foundation funded a la raza group and Cesar really told them off. The foundation liked the outfit's sense of pride or something, and Cesar tried to explain to them what the origin of the word was, that it's related to Hitler's concept."
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?
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.
The media makes shit up like this all the time to get good ratings and now they want to act like they have the moral highground. It's laughable at best.
Paul Ryan said the remarks were classic racism. It seems like everyone but Trump is on the same page on this one.
Is that supposed to legitimize your incorrect belief?
'everyone's on the same page on this one' so you know I'm right when I call him RACIST!
The funniest part about this is how you think Paul Ryan backstabbing him means anything when he begrudgingly at best gave him his endorsement to begin with.
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.
Another instance of wishful thinking from Trump supporters that isn't based in reality. After defeating the Republican field, he closed the poll gap on Clinton. Now we are seeing those gaps start opening up again in the last week. The guy is losing to a candidate going to a contested convention for gods sake. He will never be stronger than he is now, at a time when Clinton is in the middle of a battle and people like Obama haven't even opened up on him.
This isn't even counting the unfavorable numbers. It took the Republicans DECADES of smear to get Hillary to the unfavorable numbers she has now. Trump was able to get worse numbers than her in 6 fucking months. Hilarious.
"I hear more and more Mexicans talking about la raza—to build up their pride, you know," Chavez told me. "Some people don't look at it as racism, but when you say 'la raza,' you are saying an anti-gringo thing, and it won't stop there. Today it's anti-gringo, tomorrow it will be anti-Negro, and the day after it will be anti-Filipino, anti-Puerto Rican. And then it will be anti-poor-Mexican, and anti-darker-skinned Mexican. ... La raza is a very dangerous concept. I speak very strongly against it among the chicanos." - Cesar Chavez
"That's one of the reasons he is so upset about la raza. The same Mexicans that ten years ago were talking about themselves as Spaniards are coming on real strong these days as Mexicans. Everyone should be proud of what they are, of course, but race is only skin-deep. It's phony and it comes out of frustration; the la raza people are not secure. They look upon Cesar as their 'dumb Mexican' leader; he's become their saint. But he doesn't want any part of it. He said to me just the other day, 'Can't they understand that that's just the way Hitler started?' A few months ago the Ford Foundation funded a la raza group and Cesar really told them off. The foundation liked the outfit's sense of pride or something, and Cesar tried to explain to them what the origin of the word was, that it's related to Hitler's concept."
Gz, you can copy the wikipedia page on La Raza. You want a cookie for that?
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.
Another instance of wishful thinking from Trump supporters that isn't based in reality. After defeating the Republican field, he closed the poll gap on Clinton. Now we are seeing those gaps start opening up again in the last week. The guy is losing to a candidate going to a contested convention for gods sake. He will never be stronger than he is now, at a time when Clinton is in the middle of a battle and people like Obama haven't even opened up on him.
This isn't even counting the unfavorable numbers. It took the Republicans DECADES of smear to get Hillary to the unfavorable numbers she has now. Trump was able to get worse numbers than her in 6 fucking months. Hilarious.
To be fair, Obama's tried to. It just didn't work out so well
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?
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.
The media makes shit up like this all the time to get good ratings and now they want to act like they have the moral highground. It's laughable at best.
Paul Ryan said the remarks were classic racism. It seems like everyone but Trump is on the same page on this one.
Is that supposed to legitimize your incorrect belief?
'everyone's on the same page on this one' so you know I'm right when I call him RACIST!
Trump is racist. It's been fact for a long time. He has been accused of it over and over for decades.
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?
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.
The media makes shit up like this all the time to get good ratings and now they want to act like they have the moral highground. It's laughable at best.
Paul Ryan said the remarks were classic racism. It seems like everyone but Trump is on the same page on this one.
Is that supposed to legitimize your incorrect belief?
'everyone's on the same page on this one' so you know I'm right when I call him RACIST!
Trump is racist. It's been fact for a long time. He has been accused of it over and over for decades.
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?
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.
The media makes shit up like this all the time to get good ratings and now they want to act like they have the moral highground. It's laughable at best.
Paul Ryan said the remarks were classic racism. It seems like everyone but Trump is on the same page on this one.
Is that supposed to legitimize your incorrect belief?
'everyone's on the same page on this one' so you know I'm right when I call him RACIST!
Trump is racist. It's been fact for a long time. He has been accused of it over and over for decades.
Every white male is a racist to the left
That's not how it works, only the ones who say and do racist things are.
Although that's actually an amazing defence. Trump says something racist, people call him racist and you jump to "well then everyone is racist". Those people then go "wait, I don't want to be a racist" and therefore the logical conclusion is that because one white male isn't racist no white male can be racist. If the left thinks that all white men are racist then by extension any white male, no matter what they say or do, is not racist, right?
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?
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.
The media makes shit up like this all the time to get good ratings and now they want to act like they have the moral highground. It's laughable at best.
Paul Ryan said the remarks were classic racism. It seems like everyone but Trump is on the same page on this one.
Is that supposed to legitimize your incorrect belief?
'everyone's on the same page on this one' so you know I'm right when I call him RACIST!
Trump is racist. It's been fact for a long time. He has been accused of it over and over for decades.
"I hear more and more Mexicans talking about la raza—to build up their pride, you know," Chavez told me. "Some people don't look at it as racism, but when you say 'la raza,' you are saying an anti-gringo thing, and it won't stop there. Today it's anti-gringo, tomorrow it will be anti-Negro, and the day after it will be anti-Filipino, anti-Puerto Rican. And then it will be anti-poor-Mexican, and anti-darker-skinned Mexican. ... La raza is a very dangerous concept. I speak very strongly against it among the chicanos." - Cesar Chavez
"That's one of the reasons he is so upset about la raza. The same Mexicans that ten years ago were talking about themselves as Spaniards are coming on real strong these days as Mexicans. Everyone should be proud of what they are, of course, but race is only skin-deep. It's phony and it comes out of frustration; the la raza people are not secure. They look upon Cesar as their 'dumb Mexican' leader; he's become their saint. But he doesn't want any part of it. He said to me just the other day, 'Can't they understand that that's just the way Hitler started?' A few months ago the Ford Foundation funded a la raza group and Cesar really told them off. The foundation liked the outfit's sense of pride or something, and Cesar tried to explain to them what the origin of the word was, that it's related to Hitler's concept."
Gz, you can copy the wikipedia page on La Raza. You want a cookie for that?
I think the judge should disavow. Does he disavow? It's very inception is racist in intent. Disavow only seems reasonable.
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?
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.
The media makes shit up like this all the time to get good ratings and now they want to act like they have the moral highground. It's laughable at best.
Paul Ryan said the remarks were classic racism. It seems like everyone but Trump is on the same page on this one.
Is that supposed to legitimize your incorrect belief?
'everyone's on the same page on this one' so you know I'm right when I call him RACIST!
Trump is racist. It's been fact for a long time. He has been accused of it over and over for decades.
Every white male is a racist to the left
Only if you say/think/perpetuate racist things. Like you are not stupid, except if you say/think stupid things.
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?
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.
The media makes shit up like this all the time to get good ratings and now they want to act like they have the moral highground. It's laughable at best.
Paul Ryan said the remarks were classic racism. It seems like everyone but Trump is on the same page on this one.
Is that supposed to legitimize your incorrect belief?
'everyone's on the same page on this one' so you know I'm right when I call him RACIST!
Trump is racist. It's been fact for a long time. He has been accused of it over and over for decades.
Every white male is a racist to the left
That's not how it works, only the ones who say and do racist things are.
He got called a racist for saying we should halt immigration from muslims. They just want to make everything about race when it has nothing to do with race it has to do with facts and national security.
I honestly think race-baiting is a bigger problem in the west at this point than actual racism.
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.
Another instance of wishful thinking from Trump supporters that isn't based in reality.
I'll take being "another instance" in whatever your worldview is than swallowing whole every case of people crying wolf about the candidates.
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.
It's interesting how people see the same material and say "this is what he said all along" and others think it means someone sat down and had a stern chat with him about his bad behavior and finally got him to back off.
On June 08 2016 07:11 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] 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?
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.
The media makes shit up like this all the time to get good ratings and now they want to act like they have the moral highground. It's laughable at best.
Paul Ryan said the remarks were classic racism. It seems like everyone but Trump is on the same page on this one.
Is that supposed to legitimize your incorrect belief?
'everyone's on the same page on this one' so you know I'm right when I call him RACIST!
Trump is racist. It's been fact for a long time. He has been accused of it over and over for decades.
Every white male is a racist to the left
That's not how it works, only the ones who say and do racist things are.
He got called a racist for saying we should halt immigration from muslims. They just want to make everything about race when it has nothing to do with race it has to do with facts and national security.
I honestly think race-baiting is a bigger problem in the west at this point than actual racism.
You do understand that your argument was that "the left call all white males racist, that means that if a white male is called a racist by the left then no matter what he has said or done, he must not be racist", right? An argument that incidentally also exonerates Hitler. Now I'm not saying that Trump is Hitler, just that maybe instead of going "the left calls all white males racist" and dismissing it based on that, you should actually look at what Trump has said and done and base the decision upon that. Because otherwise we have to dismiss a lot of charges of racism and some of them will cover racists, like Hitler, and Trump.
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.
Another instance of wishful thinking from Trump supporters that isn't based in reality.
I'll take being "another instance" in whatever your worldview is than swallowing whole every case of people crying wolf about the candidates.
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.
It's interesting how people see the same material and say "this is what he said all along" and others think it means someone sat down and had a stern chat with him about his bad behavior and finally got him to back off.
The reality is it's probably somewhere in between.
I'm not really sold by the people constantly going 'no he said this but this is what he meant'.
I'm not also sold by the blatantly confirmation-biased interpretations of the things he says either.
He definitely walks a fine line but the shit he gets for it is extraordinarily disproportional to him stepping over it or not. If he was a minority he wouldn't even be doubted as the presumptive next POTUS.
EPT
