Trump (Part 7)

[claig]

Even more Trump.

There may be 4 years of this.
Try to keep it lighthearted and not snide, please.
It's Christmas.

'How about the "joke" that women should be punished for having an abortion?'

Brussels, it looks like you are trying to be clever again and failing as usual. I am not aware of any such "joke".

So, Trump meant that women should be punished for having an abortion?
This was discussed in earlier threads.

Also, I thought name calling such as Bliar was only fair for politicians. However, you and Misss have started making fun (and failing...) of other pps usernames.
When you (a number of Trump fans) have accused pps previously of bullying, being snide and patronising. Indeed you asked to keep this thread snide free. So, what is it?

'But you comment on huge subjects and provide links all the time! '

Yes where the links are easily to hand and about topics that are current. We discussed Khan to some extent months back when the links were current. The skullduggery involved, the political classes tricks, the Democrat tricks, the media spinners and the "room full of liars" tricks are intricate and take time to explain and link to and it is no longer current and will take time to put together. Not worth it, if you followed it at the time, you would understand it. If you read the Guardian or the BBC, the Oxbridge teams would have fooled you. "It is wot it is".

'Indeed you asked to keep this thread snide free. So, what is it?'

If posters are patronising like Brussels saying

'Would you like me to explain what taking the moral high ground means?'

and when the majority of Brussels' posts are of a similar nature and when Brussels is a relatively new poster to the threads who only ever brings up "what do you want to say that political correctness is stopping you saying?" or only ever brings up abortion which she says Trump "joked" about which was discussed in detail many threads back, then one or two snide remarks are sadly inevitable

'But if you explain why the remarks about the Mexican judge were justifiable I promise not to comment at all.'

It is a huge subject, it will require links etc. Too long to get into. Democrat funding, support, set up, border policy, the Wall etc etc Too long to get into, but you can google it and follow all the links and see why Trump attacked the judge and what was really behind it

He attacked the judge because he plays dirty to get his own way in court. It's not complicated at all.

"In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation [civil fraud lawsuits against Trump University] given that he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,” Mr. Trump said."

www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-keeps-up-attacks-on-judge-gonzalo-curiel-1464911442

There. Not so hard.

Also:
"Ronald Rotunda, a professor at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, Calif., noted that whatever Mr. Trump’s grievances, his lawyers haven’t filed any motion asking for the case to be reassigned to a different judge. If Mr. Trump has a problem with the judge, “that’s the legitimate way” to register a complaint, he said. Mr. Trump in the interview said that he may do so."

However, Trump ended up settling out of court for a large percentage of what the plaintiffs were asking for.

Lot more to it than that.

"Bert I notice you try to win an argument with an attempt at moral high ground."

But actually, I wasn't. Would you like me to explain what taking the moral high ground means? You don't seem to be clear.

How is that patronising? It is important to clarify those statements, particularly when they are used to stop the debate.

Lot more to it than that.

Ok, what?

'How is that patronising?'

Was it Brussels?

'Ok, what?'

Too long, side issue, though fascinating in terms of political tricks etc

though fascinating in terms of political tricks

I have to agree with you on that. Although not as you meant it. :)

But it's not a side issue. It's part of a trend by Trump of trying to subvert the normal course of justice, as well as at the very least bordering on racist, given that the judge was American, not Mexican. He wouldn't be affected by any walls, and many descendants of immigrants actually support immigration controls.

Here's a Breitbart link
www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/06/trumps-questioning-federal-judge-not-racist/

"But this debate is not just about Trump or Trump University; it is about a politically correct double standard that permits liberals to use the faith of pro-life judges to boot them from a case, but calls questioning the ethnicity based activism of a liberal judge racism. And this is a concept the voters understand."

Except that what was being judged was whether Trump had defrauded students enrolled at his university. Not any subject related to immigration or mexicans, nor ever latinos.

And to excuse judges on conflict of interest because Trump may have insulted the group they belong to, then no judge would be acceptable.
Aren't judges elite AND establishment?

Somebody accused me of trying to win arguments by trying to occupy the moral high ground.

They obviously don't understand what "occupying the moral high ground" means. So I offered to explain. Doesn't seem patronizing to me. But i do find it interesting that I seem to be a particular target for the ad hominems. Sometimes the simple questions- like "Does Trump really think that women who have abortions should be punished or was that a joke?" are the hardest to answer.

Liberals made Trump’s comments about race

Also from the same link.

No, Trump made it about race, when he questioned the judge's impartiality based on his ethnic background.

Sometimes the simple questions- like "Does Trump really think that women who have abortions should be punished or was that a joke?" are the hardest to answer.

Yes, my question hasn't had an answer yet.

'Yes, my question hasn't had an answer yet.'

The stance of the judge on an abortion case gives them a conflict interest so it is fine to remove them. An American judge of Mexican descent ruling on a fraud case doesn't. No matter what Trump or BrietBart say.

Funny how they misunderstand what political correctness and the law isn't it.

As I said, being against "political correctness" is just a cover for not being able to say what you want because the logical and reasoned argument "trumps" your prejudice every time. So you mutter darkly about being silenced.

This question:
So, Trump meant that women should be punished for having an abortion?
Or was it a joke, as BR suggested?

"So basically, Trump shows his lack of political correctness by mocking disabled people, being offensive to the parents of a Muslim veteran, saying that a Judge can't be impartial bcase he is of Mexican extraction, and talking about grabbing women by the genitals."

Looks like it. And I guess that answers the question of what Trumpers who feel trapped by political correctness want to do with their new found freedom.

'given that the judge was American, not Mexican'

The judge was American of Mexican heritage. The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association to which Curiel belongs supports pro-illegal immigration organizations. Trump was against illegal immigration.

The judge had donated to the Democrats in the past. The two law firms the judge chose to represent the plaintiffs had ties to the Democrats. One firm had reportedly paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches by Hillary, and we know she sent people to sleep at her rallies unlike Trump, so hopefully the speeches were worth that money.

The law case was over Trump University, which Trump says is a minor case and he has settled it now anyway.

Media teams jumped all over the case because the teams knew that Trump would ask for the judge to be recused due to political concerns over his election campaign which was heavily about illegal immigration, border security and the Wall and his remarks about illegal Mexican immigration and therefore media teams rubbed their hands thinking "we have finally suckered Trump in now and our bosses will be pleased if we finish Trump off".

But they soon learned that "you can't Stump the Trump" and the Stump for Trump Sisters joined right in the fray and gave the Democrats hell while explaining to Trump fans the tricks that the "room full of liars" media were trying to pull. Trump meanwhile was hitting back at Trump rallies and as expected, Trump fans were going nuts and the queues to attend Trump rallies spread for miles and miles whereas Clinton rallies needed to pressgang passers-by in order to make the halls appear half full with teh help of clever mainstream media team camera work which helped create the illusion, along with the rigged polls and biased media coverage, that Hillary would win which was what the elite were praying for.

We know the end result. Trump won, the Stump for Trump Sisters won, the people won, we won and they lost.

More on the judge (it really doesn't take that long)

Trump:
"It is unfortunate that my comments have been misconstrued as a categorical attack against people of Mexican heritage. I am friends with and employ thousands of people of Mexican and Hispanic descent. The American justice system relies on fair and impartial judges. All judges should be held to that standard. I do not feel that one’s heritage makes them incapable of being impartial, but, based on the rulings that I have received in the Trump University civil case, I feel justified in questioning whether I am receiving a fair trial ."

So, I'm losing and I'll call bias.
As in when he thought he was losing the election and he said it was rigged.

"With all of the thousands of people who have given the courses such high marks and accolades, we will win this case!"

He settled. For a high figure.

"which Trump says is a minor case and he has settled it now anyway."

Yes and he is lighter £25 million dollars, plus fees for the benefit of this. Isn't an indication of no wrong doing.

He was attempting to bully the judge, there is no conflict of interest there, if there had been Trump's very expensive lawyers would have brought it up. They didn't, Trump just used the media to try to force the issue.

Again with the people? Not a victory for the people,Of those Americans who voted, 54% DID NOT WANT TRUMP. In addition to the nearly 3 million votes Hillary beat Trump by, another 7 million+ also rejected him by voting Green or Libertarian. That's a margin of over 10 million voters who didn't want Trump as their president. That's huge.

You can stump the Trump, quite easily, otherwise he wouldn't be handing over $25 milion plus fees for the university case, he lost. He lost as well because his business was rubbish, as all of his businesses have been that he started himself. He even manged to jeopardise the one he inherited and had to use his elite establishment position to keep it.

'It is unfortunate that my comments have been misconstrued as a categorical attack against people of Mexican heritage'

That was Trump being uncharacteristically polite to the "room full of liars" media who were rubbing their hands in glee as they hoped their bosses would give them a bonus as they wilfully misconstrued Trump's questioning over the impartiality of the judge and whether he would receive a fair trial and tried to paint it as if Trump was anti Mexican. It is the media's usual game, we have all come to see that now after 15 months of watching the "room full of liars" and how the teams operate.

And I'll also remind you of the Florida Attorney General, who is a Trump supporter and has been part of his transition team and may have been paid (via Trump's Foundation!), and that didn't add the many complaints from Florida to the Supreme Court case.

fortune.com/2016/09/12/trump-foundation-bondi-florida-ag/

Yes and he is lighter £25 million dollars, plus fees for the benefit of this. Isn't an indication of no wrong doing.

Quite on the contrary. They were asking for 40 million, so they got 62% of the claim.

I think previous settlements by Clinton were considered as an admission of guilt, were they not?

T"rump's questioning over the impartiality of the judge and whether he would receive a fair trial and tried to paint it as if Trump was anti Mexican."

Trump received a fair trial, his lawyers would have challenged if it . Trump just raised the issue to cast doubt in the mind of his supporters.

You can tell Trump is anti mexican by his statements.