Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
"Everybody" (I use this loosely of course) has been using the term racist to describe Trump and his statements, based on their collective acceptance and understanding of the term..even Trump himself stating he isn't a racist, in response to aforementioned understanding and acceptance of said term.
Is that not a true statement?
If we therefore determine that Teump is not a racist (based on the argument that we are collectively one race).....
Then the question must be asked: what is he?
Does he meet the criteria for being termed a "bigot"?
-- intolerance or hatred against other "races", ethnicities, or even intolerance and hatred of others opinions.
Is he, as I would term it, practicing "culture-ism" (I define it as intolerance or hatred of someone's religion or cultural background/heritage) or is it "color-ism" ( intolerance or hatred toward a human who is a different color than you).
Perhaps it's national-ism?
Faith-ism?
Take your pick...he has demonstrated all the above at one point or another in his candidacy.
Regardless there is a difference between supports engage in violence and supporters engaging in violence are egged on and encouraged by the candidate...
skyth wrote: So he's a member of something that has a similar name to a group that opposes Trump so he shouldn't be able to try the case. Sounds like grasping at straws to try to justify Trump being an idiot...
no but should we ignore his concerns as just being racist? personally if you go after Trump there are more things that have more credence then this, personally most people would question the judge presiding over their case if they had reason too.
Considering that Trump stated that his 'concerns' because he was building a wall the judge wouldn't give him a fair trial...I would say the answer is yes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/06 03:33:03
skyth wrote:Considering that Trump stated that his 'concerns' because he was building a wall the judge wouldn't give him a fair trial...I would say the answer is yes.
Do you think that Trump's concerns are legitimate or illegitimate? Is it possible that the judge could be swayed because of Trump's political views on immigration?
"Everybody" (I use this loosely of course) has been using the term racist to describe Trump and his statements, based on their collective acceptance and understanding of the term..even Trump himself stating he isn't a racist, in response to aforementioned understanding and acceptance of said term.
Is that not a true statement?
If we therefore determine that Teump is not a racist (based on the argument that we are collectively one race).....
Then the question must be asked: what is he?
Does he meet the criteria for being termed a "bigot"?
-- intolerance or hatred against other "races", ethnicities, or even intolerance and hatred of others opinions.
Is he, as I would term it, practicing "culture-ism" (I define it as intolerance or hatred of someone's religion or cultural background/heritage) or is it "color-ism" ( intolerance or hatred toward a human who is a different color than you).
Perhaps it's national-ism?
Faith-ism?
Take your pick...he has demonstrated all the above at one point or another in his candidacy.
your exact words are he is racist because his hate of Mexicans, last I checked Mexican's are not one race nor one color, I have seen blonde hair blue eyed Mexicans, your statement is just evidence of your obvious ignorance of the word race, race is of a specific color, not people from another country or even a bunch of countries, as to the wall on the border, it makes sense since most illegals of all nationalities and colors coming thru our southern borders with the Florida area in coming in second followed by our other borders.
skyth wrote: Regardless there is a difference between supports engage in violence and supporters engaging in violence are egged on and encouraged by the candidate...
skyth wrote: So he's a member of something that has a similar name to a group that opposes Trump so he shouldn't be able to try the case. Sounds like grasping at straws to try to justify Trump being an idiot...
no but should we ignore his concerns as just being racist? personally if you go after Trump there are more things that have more credence then this, personally most people would question the judge presiding over their case if they had reason too.
Considering that Trump stated that his 'concerns' because he was building a wall the judge wouldn't give him a fair trial...I would say the answer is yes.
so you are saying that Trump wants to build a wall would never influence anyone?
as to protesters attacked Trump supporters with attacks and throwing things, and if we look at the track record how many mobs of protesters show up at Trump Rallys and cause problems? a lot, how many show up at Clinton rallys and cause problems? some, how many show up at Sanders Rallys? very few if any, i'm seeing a pattern here.
let us look at the protesters at Sanders rallys:
A lone protester wearing a Trump shirt which lasted a minute:
not sure that was a protest either, since it stated the organizer wanted to speak to Sanders and say how Seattle is racist and was booed by Sanders supporters.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/06 03:52:11
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Here's the thing, Trump might have some legitimate problems with some of the judge's rulings. That's fine and fair. If he wants to bring them up in public and thereby get the public to focus on his current lawsuit, that's his prerogative (but it seems to be a really dumb one). He is basically extending the story by doing so. What he should do if he is going to bring up his problems is actually bring up the problems. What are the actual rulings that Trump deems so unfair? I would like to know. By going after the man's cultural heritage as the reasoning seems completely misplaced and counterproductive (unless Trump assumes this sort of rhetoric really will appeal to his cultists). The judge doesn't have to be "a Mexican" to be prejudiced against him for his ideas of the wall. I am from German/Irish descent, and I find his ideas and rhetoric to prejudice me against him. He is jumping over the possibly legitimate rulings the judge has made and assuming the judge's motive (which only the judge can really know). As a result, I view it as Trump not really having any sort of leg to stand on as far as "unfair rulings" at all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/06 05:24:48
Gordon Shumway wrote: Here's the thing, Trump might have some legitimate problems with some of the judge's rulings. That's fine and fair. If he wants to bring them up in public and thereby get the public to focus on his current lawsuit, that's his prerogative (but it seems to be a really dumb one). He is basically extending the story by doing so. What he should do if he is going to bring up his problems is actually bring up the problems. What are the actual rulings that Trump deems so unfair? I would like to know. By going after the man's cultural heritage as the reasoning seems completely misplaced and counterproductive (unless Trump assumes this sort of rhetoric really will appeal to his cultists). The judge doesn't have to be "a Mexican" to be prejudiced against him for his ideas of the wall. I am from German/Irish descent, and I find his ideas and rhetoric to prejudice me against him.
no rulings have been made, me thinks Trump wants a different judge to handle his case.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Here's the thing, Trump might have some legitimate problems with some of the judge's rulings. That's fine and fair. If he wants to bring them up in public and thereby get the public to focus on his current lawsuit, that's his prerogative (but it seems to be a really dumb one). He is basically extending the story by doing so. What he should do if he is going to bring up his problems is actually bring up the problems. What are the actual rulings that Trump deems so unfair? I would like to know. By going after the man's cultural heritage as the reasoning seems completely misplaced and counterproductive (unless Trump assumes this sort of rhetoric really will appeal to his cultists). The judge doesn't have to be "a Mexican" to be prejudiced against him for his ideas of the wall. I am from German/Irish descent, and I find his ideas and rhetoric to prejudice me against him.
Do you think that the man's cultural heritage could have an impact on the way that he deals with Donald Trump?
Gordon Shumway wrote: Here's the thing, Trump might have some legitimate problems with some of the judge's rulings. That's fine and fair. If he wants to bring them up in public and thereby get the public to focus on his current lawsuit, that's his prerogative (but it seems to be a really dumb one). He is basically extending the story by doing so. What he should do if he is going to bring up his problems is actually bring up the problems. What are the actual rulings that Trump deems so unfair? I would like to know. By going after the man's cultural heritage as the reasoning seems completely misplaced and counterproductive (unless Trump assumes this sort of rhetoric really will appeal to his cultists). The judge doesn't have to be "a Mexican" to be prejudiced against him for his ideas of the wall. I am from German/Irish descent, and I find his ideas and rhetoric to prejudice me against him.
no rulings have been made, me thinks Trump wants a different judge to handle his case.
Judges make rulings constantly throughout a case, like sustaining or overruling objections, allowing certain forms of evidence and not others, etc. in this case, the only ruling Trump has actually complained about was the fact that the judge released some depositions/testimony and documents from some of the former educators.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/06 05:27:07
Gordon Shumway wrote: Here's the thing, Trump might have some legitimate problems with some of the judge's rulings. That's fine and fair. If he wants to bring them up in public and thereby get the public to focus on his current lawsuit, that's his prerogative (but it seems to be a really dumb one). He is basically extending the story by doing so. What he should do if he is going to bring up his problems is actually bring up the problems. What are the actual rulings that Trump deems so unfair? I would like to know. By going after the man's cultural heritage as the reasoning seems completely misplaced and counterproductive (unless Trump assumes this sort of rhetoric really will appeal to his cultists). The judge doesn't have to be "a Mexican" to be prejudiced against him for his ideas of the wall. I am from German/Irish descent, and I find his ideas and rhetoric to prejudice me against him.
no rulings have been made, me thinks Trump wants a different judge to handle his case.
Judges make rulings constantly throughout a case, like sustaining or overruling objections, allowing certain forms of evidence and not others, etc. in this case, the only ruling Trump has actually complained about was the fact that the judge released some depositions/testimony and documents from some of the former educators.
so a judge released some depositions from employees who allegedly claimed they did not like some of the things going on in his school several years ago, and yet still continued to work there? (all this took place many years ago since Trump's school stopped accepting students back in 2010) I'd be not happy with that even if Judge Judy was on the bench, those testimonies will most likely get torn apart by any decent attorney, but still that they were released is odd. and to be honest does sound politically motivated if you ask me.
wonder if we can get a judge to release Clinton's documents?
sounds like he got his appeal approved to move it too a higher court.
also don't see any court documents being released in this case (at least i can't find any) so why should one judge rule one way while another rules another way and not question possible ethics violations?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/06/06 05:44:15
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Here's the thing, Trump might have some legitimate problems with some of the judge's rulings. That's fine and fair. If he wants to bring them up in public and thereby get the public to focus on his current lawsuit, that's his prerogative (but it seems to be a really dumb one). He is basically extending the story by doing so. What he should do if he is going to bring up his problems is actually bring up the problems. What are the actual rulings that Trump deems so unfair? I would like to know. By going after the man's cultural heritage as the reasoning seems completely misplaced and counterproductive (unless Trump assumes this sort of rhetoric really will appeal to his cultists). The judge doesn't have to be "a Mexican" to be prejudiced against him for his ideas of the wall. I am from German/Irish descent, and I find his ideas and rhetoric to prejudice me against him.
no rulings have been made, me thinks Trump wants a different judge to handle his case.
Judges make rulings constantly throughout a case, like sustaining or overruling objections, allowing certain forms of evidence and not others, etc. in this case, the only ruling Trump has actually complained about was the fact that the judge released some depositions/testimony and documents from some of the former educators.
so a judge released some depositions from employees who allegedly claimed they did not like some of the things going on in his school several years ago, and yet still continued to work there? (all this took place many years ago since Trump's school stopped accepting students back in 2010) I'd be not happy with that even if Judge Judy was on the bench, those testimonies will most likely get torn apart by any decent attorney, but still that they were released is odd. and to be honest does sound politically motivated if you ask me.
wonder if we can get a judge to release Clinton's documents?
Gordon Shumway wrote: Here's the thing, Trump might have some legitimate problems with some of the judge's rulings. That's fine and fair. If he wants to bring them up in public and thereby get the public to focus on his current lawsuit, that's his prerogative (but it seems to be a really dumb one). He is basically extending the story by doing so. What he should do if he is going to bring up his problems is actually bring up the problems. What are the actual rulings that Trump deems so unfair? I would like to know. By going after the man's cultural heritage as the reasoning seems completely misplaced and counterproductive (unless Trump assumes this sort of rhetoric really will appeal to his cultists). The judge doesn't have to be "a Mexican" to be prejudiced against him for his ideas of the wall. I am from German/Irish descent, and I find his ideas and rhetoric to prejudice me against him.
no rulings have been made, me thinks Trump wants a different judge to handle his case.
Judges make rulings constantly throughout a case, like sustaining or overruling objections, allowing certain forms of evidence and not others, etc. in this case, the only ruling Trump has actually complained about was the fact that the judge released some depositions/testimony and documents from some of the former educators.
so a judge released some depositions from employees who allegedly claimed they did not like some of the things going on in his school several years ago, and yet still continued to work there? (all this took place many years ago since Trump's school stopped accepting students back in 2010) I'd be not happy with that even if Judge Judy was on the bench, those testimonies will most likely get torn apart by any decent attorney, but still that they were released is odd. and to be honest does sound politically motivated if you ask me.
wonder if we can get a judge to release Clinton's documents?
yeah was reading that case now, and to be honest the judge releasing said documents like he did does sound politically motivated, so there might be some possibility to a violation of ethics, also noticed all the documents released were not negative from students. me thinks this case is not really going to go very far. especially when dealing with For-Profit schools, they are a scam and always a scam as far as i'm concerned but the most I see happening here to Trump is a fine. nor do i see it having any effect whatsoever on his presidential run since so much more to use against him, this is meh.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Well, whether or not it was a scam is precisely what the case is trying to determine and I have no idea what the punishment for said scam would be (not a legal expert on the NYC legal system). You are probably right with fines. Maybe some probation.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Well, whether or not it was a scam is precisely what the case is trying to determine and I have no idea what the punishment for said scam would be (not a legal expert on the NYC legal system). You are probably right with fines. Maybe some probation.
doubt probation, already seen several scam schools taken to school and only fined, and they had a lot more going against them, so like I said doubt this will go far, i look at this as akin to the Clintons and the white water scandal and that didn't hurt him much.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Well, whether or not it was a scam is precisely what the case is trying to determine and I have no idea what the punishment for said scam would be (not a legal expert on the NYC legal system). You are probably right with fines. Maybe some probation.
doubt probation, already seen several scam schools taken to school and only fined, and they had a lot more going against them, so like I said doubt this will go far, i look at this as akin to the Clintons and the white water scandal and that didn't hurt him much.
Except the Clintons never were actually charged with anything after three investigations found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Trump is actually going to trial.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Well, whether or not it was a scam is precisely what the case is trying to determine and I have no idea what the punishment for said scam would be (not a legal expert on the NYC legal system). You are probably right with fines. Maybe some probation.
doubt probation, already seen several scam schools taken to school and only fined, and they had a lot more going against them, so like I said doubt this will go far, i look at this as akin to the Clintons and the white water scandal and that didn't hurt him much.
Except the Clintons never were actually charged with anything after three investigations found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Trump is actually going to trial.
Trump is in essence in a civil suit. not a criminal case per se.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Lol, I wasn't being serious to call you out on some gak... I am curious because I know you're from that part of the Best Coast, and thought you might have seen better stuff than I have via local news.
Lol, So far all I know is when I shook hands with Bernie Sanders and met his campaign,he seemed very nice and genuine.
Some interesting parts though I have heard though Is that they foiled a mass shooting on my campus with a supposed "Conservative Motive". But that is word of mouth.
..... so is he referring to Autumn , America or Humanity here ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
by your words if I don't like how you think and want to protest I can hit you, beat you and attack you and that is ok ?
If I advocate for the destruction of your lifestyle and spearhead a movement dedicated to it there isn't much else you can do that makes a practical difference. Right or wrong has nothing to do with the fact that the struggle for supremacy in society inevitably boils down to force.
Thats cute. The ones on the other side are the ones with the guns and the bullets. There is a substantial subculture within that group that has been preparing for you to do just that, and have lots and lots of cool toys they want to try out. College hothouse kids will go through a buzzsaw if they try that.
Jihadin wrote: I'm against career politicians. Hillary Career politician. Trump not. Though if Trump in office manages to negate a chunk of US Debt we all be praising him on his financial shenanigans eh (by not opening up the "Football"
It will send the US economy into a death spiral and join such economic powerhouses as Argentina and Zimbabwe.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/06/06 11:25:24
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I had a good laugh this morning. Figure I share from the New York Post
Are President Obama, Hillary Clinton and violent leftists in cahoots to elect Donald Trump? Or are they just idiots?
The evidence is overwhelming that they all belong to a conspiracy — either of secret GOP sympathizers or of dunces. Those are the only options after Democrats took turns denouncing Trump in ways that actually bolstered the potency of his arguments. Three examples tell the tale.
First, Obama traveled to Indiana to deliver what aides called his first attempt to influence the election. That’s a lie, of course, but not the biggest one of the day. No. 1 would be Obama’s touting the economy as a roaring success.
“If what you care about in this election is your pocketbook; if what you’re concerned about is who will look out for the interests of working people and grow the middle class,” the president claimed, “if what you’re concerned about is the economy, then the debate is not even close.”
He crowed about “progress” made during his tenure, and said sticking with Democrats was the only sensible option.
Two days later, the Labor Department reported that employers added a mere 38,000 jobs in May, the worst report in six years. Even with massive help from the Federal Reserve, the economy’s slow growth means it has created three million fewer jobs than it should have by now, making Obama’s boast look ridiculous.
It also makes Trump’s focus on creating jobs and criticism of international trade deals look like the right ideas. After all, if puny growth for seven years is the best Obama can do, why not give the other team and other ideas a chance?
Clinton provided the second backfire example with her foreign-policy speech. It had very little to do with actual foreign policy, and everything to do with a rehearsed rant on Trump. She called him reckless, childish, uninformed and unprepared.
“This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes,” she declared
The liberal press ate it up, displaying a remarkable talent for ignoring the foreign-policy disasters unfolding around the world, courtesy of Clinton and Obama. The next president will inherit the brutal aggressions of China and Russia and the cancerous spread of Islamic terrorism.
And it takes a special media willfulness to refuse to see the biblical deprivations befalling millions of refugees spilling out from Syria and Libya after Obama and Clinton helped turn those countries’ crises into catastrophes. In a recent span of just eight days, about 1,000 people drowned trying to escape across the Mediterranean to Europe.
If that’s the best Dems can do, why should they get a third term? Would Trump be worse?
The third evidence of a conspiracy involved a Trump rally in San Jose, Calif. Or rather, it involved the thugs, gang members and people burning the American flag and waving Mexican flags who attacked Trump supporters.
An ABC reporter tweeted that police lost control and that “Trump supporters [were] being terrorized and beaten up by mobs of protesters.” Among those beaten was a man named Juan Hernandez, a gay Latino Trump supporter who released photos of his broken nose and bloody shirt, along with a statement, writing:
“Got jumped last night as we exited the rally . . . Thanks for a broken nose, uncontrollable bleeding, and a bash to the head, Democrats. You sure are doing your party proud.”
As Hernandez notes, the violence helps make Trump’s case. If the candidate’s promise to control the border brings such a ferocious backlash, he’s on to something.
That scary thought must have seeped into the central brain of The New York Times, which gave a disgracefully distorted picture of what happened in San Jose. It called the one-way assaults “clashes” between “protesters” and Trump backers, as if both sides were equally to blame.
Even more shameful, the paper’s Friday article included this sentence: “While Mr. Trump has said he does not condone violence of any kind, his campaign made little effort to condemn it.”
You can’t be that ignorant without intent.
The pattern is obvious — the Democrats’ Way is in trouble. The economy won’t cooperate with their big-government nostrums, Clinton is dodging Bernie Sanders and the FBI, and Obama doesn’t understand why the world doesn’t treat his every utterance as gospel.
Maybe they should take a hint. Maybe, finally, America has had enough
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Thats cute. The ones on the other side are the ones with the guns and the bullets. There is a substantial subculture within that group that has been preparing for you to do just that, and have lots and lots of cool toys they want to try out. College hothouse kids will go through a buzzsaw if they try that.
Yeeees, one side is currently more willing and able to use force?
As far as the Judge in the Trump U case. I think Ken from Popehat said it best:
Look, in the modern political climate I could burn ten thousand words on this and people who support Trump wouldn't buy it and people who oppose Trump would buy it even if the only word was " ." But in my judgment, Judge Curiel's partial denial of the summary judgment is pretty straightforward and well within the range of normal federal judicial decisions on summary judgment.
Thats cute. The ones on the other side are the ones with the guns and the bullets. There is a substantial subculture within that group that has been preparing for you to do just that, and have lots and lots of cool toys they want to try out. College hothouse kids will go through a buzzsaw if they try that.
Yeeees, one side is currently more willing and able to use force?
So far it has been leftists in this area to a greater preponderance, but both have been quick to throw a punch. But your argument about shutting them down with violence would lead to a very bad result for you. So lets not go down that route.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
." But in my judgment, Judge Curiel's partial denial of the summary judgment is pretty straightforward and well within the range of normal federal judicial decisions on summary judgment.