Donald Trump

"
Xavderion wrote:
They want to kick out all non-Hispanics. Trump doesn't want to kick out all Hispanics. Learn the difference.


"They"?
"
Raycheetah wrote:
Love how they cut Trump off... Judge Curiel is affiliated with La Raza, the "Give California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and whatever else we can grab back to Mexico" crowd, and is directly opposed to border security and prosecution of criminal aliens present in the US.



I've looked into this case a little and couldn't find anything linking him to groups like what you described. Would you mind sharing with us your sources?

And, to be clear, when you are talking about "La Raza", what are you talking about?
"
CliveHowlitzer wrote:
I feel like we are really missing a great opportunity with Trump. You just need to come up with a system to annihilate every person who shows up to vote for Trump. An easy way to remove most of the idiots from the country.


Associating intelligence, intellect, knowledge or insight with a particular political viewpoint has no factual or historic basis. It is a form of the very kind of biased thinking that Trump is accused of.

It isn't an easy pill to swallow when someone first realizes that some very good thinkers who are well informed have a very different outlook on life. Learning to agree to disagree is never easy. It's like losing your intellectual virginity.

There are people whose viewpoints differ widely in approach but not on end goals. There are people who are relying on the thinking of others for methodology of solutions because the overall problem is too vast and complex for any single person to have more than a rudimentary grasp of the whole.

There are people who decide to place their trust in someone else, and let them figure it out. This happens on both sides of the aisle. These aren't necessarily bad people, or even lazy thinkers. We have physicians, engineers, programmers, lawyers, scientists and all sorts of professional disciplines where we trust other people's "expert" opinions. In some ways, elections represent more of this trend.

And then there is the matter of biological disparity. An observant parent can tell which side of the political aisle their child will probably choose. A pediatric psychologist could likely make that same determination within 3-9 months of age. P.E.T. scans will be able to show it even sooner, and in-vitro neurotransmitter tests will eventually be available, as well as DNA and epigenetic testing. It is no different than Homophobia was 40 years ago. People simply aren't educated enough about this yet, but they will be.

We are all very different and very similar. That dichotomy is inseparable from the human species until electronic implants such the neural nets Elon Musk suggested become commonplace and govern our thinking.

I wish we had better options for this election. I suspect there are a lot of people who support the "buck the establishment" mentality of Trump and Bernie (whether they actually represent that is another factor)but may not embrace all of these candidates ideas.

A lot less judging and a lot more discussion is what people should be doing these days.

I haven't not voted in an election before, but this one has me wondering whether I should do so.

PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910
"
SkyCore wrote:
"
Raycheetah wrote:

Love how they cut Trump off... Judge Curiel is affiliated with La Raza, the "Give California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and whatever else we can grab back to Mexico" crowd, and is directly opposed to border security and prosecution of criminal aliens present in the US. I'd say that presents a YUUUGE bias against Donald Trump, and this judge SHOULD recuse himself.

By the way, I'll give you ONE guess what "La Raza" means in Spanish. =^[.]^=


So your defense of trump explicitly answering "yes" to the question 'if it were a muslim judge do you feel like they would treat you unfairly?' was to establish that it was unfair to judge trump if you are a member of a religion or race in which he persecutes. That is all kinds of fucked up wrong, man.


It is called Recusement. It used to be one of the hallmarks that the judiciary used to show their impartiality. A judge who had ties to Coca-Cola in any way, would recuse themselves from presiding over a case in which Coca Cola was either the plaintiff or the defendent. This isn't because the judge COULDN'T be unbiased. It was done so that the apparent integrity of the process was preserved.

A judge who is an advocate for certain issues should not be presiding over cases where that issue is at stake. Their racial status doesn't necessarily factor into it. If the judge chooses to make their own racial status a focus of their personal or professional advocacy, then it becomes an issue.

I don't see where this case specifically involves that issue.

I do see a lot of sites saying that the judge Gonzalo Curiel, is a member or affiliated with the organization (Hispanic National Bar Association). I don't know if that is accurate or not. I also see where there are suggestions that the judge has membership or background or ties with the Latino Bar Association of California which calls itself the California La Raza Lawyers Association

Spoiler


Apparently, both of these have links of some sort (maybe just hyperlinks on their site - I'm not sure) to the bigger La Raza organization, and perhaps this is part of the confusion?

I'm not sure this association is accurate, but I'm not seeing this association denied either.

**IF** judge Curiel does have strong ties with HNBA, then he should immediately recuse himself, or be if unwilling, be censured and forcibly removed and disbarment considered if he is recalcitrant. That is a big ***IF**, and so far, I haven't seen proof that Judge Curiel is either a member or has strong ties to HNBA.

Once again, that is a big IF. Someone else can dig through Google and the HNBA roster if they have time to check.

It has nothing to with race. This what it has to do with:

From the Hispanic National Bar Association's website: HNBA.com

"The HNBA Rejects Trump's Racist Assertions"
http://archive.hnba.com/main/view/news/details/154

(There is nothing wrong with rejecting racism, but the devil is in the details)

which links to this:

To read the full press release, please click here.

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=df9a27c10b6d6ba38ba001440&id=f8a4a02241&e=cd8fc1ccd9%0A

....................

The HNBA calls for a boycott of all of Trump business ventures, including golf courses, hotels, and restaurants.

...............

Spoiler

THE HISPANIC NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION REJECTS TRUMP'S RACIST ASSERTIONS

Washington, DC –­­­­ The Hispanic National Bar Association represents the interests of nearly 54 million Hispanics/Latinos in the United States, which is approximately 17% of the U.S. population. By his recent derogatory remarks about Mexican immigrants, Donald Trump’s disrespect of such a large segment of the population of America is not only unbelievable, but outright wrong. His comment that Mexico only sends rapists and criminals to the United States reveals a racist nature that cannot and will not go unnoticed by the Hispanic National Bar Association nor the Latino community.

Those who seek our highest public office should attempt to engage all Americans, not divide us. His comments are clearly divisive and racist and do nothing to promote equality and justice for all. Trump’s statements reveal a bias that all Americans should reject and respond to accordingly. We cannot stand silent and allow Trump to promote such racist and discriminatory behavior. This is the time for all Americans to take a stand against his insensitive, offensive and untrue statements.

The HNBA calls for a boycott of all of Trump business ventures, including golf courses, hotels, and restaurants. We salute NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s for ending their association with Trump, and we join them in standing up against bigotry and racist rhetoric. Other businesses and corporations should follow the lead of NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s and take similar actions against Donald Trump’s business interests. We can and will make a difference.


Cynthia D. Mares
HNBA National President

About the Hispanic National Bar Association
The Hispanic National Bar Association is an incorporated, not-for-profit, national membership association that represents the interests of Hispanic attorneys, judges, law professors, legal assistants, law students, and legal professionals in the United States and its territories. Since 1972, the HNBA has acted as a force for positive change within the legal profession by creating opportunities for Hispanic lawyers and by helping generations of lawyers to succeed. The HNBA has also effectively advocated on issues of importance to the national Hispanic community. While we are proud of our accomplishments, we are mindful that our mission is as vital today as it was four decades ago, especially as the U.S. Hispanic population continues to grow. For more information, please visit www.hnba.com.




So, as racist as Trump's remarks on the judge may appear, or even be, there might be a substantial basis behind them as well. I would think a prudent lawyer would ask for a different judge, and likely get it if this were true. However, the publicity value to Trump might be worth more than the financial loss or the potential negativity - or at least maybe that is what the campaign managers are advising.

In any case, the integrity of the judiciary is far more important than any single case.
It is part of the reason the system relies so much on "precedence".

I think what we are seeing on both sides is a result of what Xavderion posted:

"
Xavderion wrote:
mfw people get their political opinions from le current year man


Information overload, lack of time/desire to check things out. Prior disinterest in politics (kind of like holiday interest in putting lights on your house during Christmas).

TL/Not-a-meme:

Without integrity, a judge has no real authority in the eyes of the people, and is merely a despot in a robe.

PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910
Last edited by DalaiLama#6738 on Jun 7, 2016, 9:17:13 AM
"
Antnee wrote:

...you're sure about that?

It's hilarious watching this play out. It used to be that you could defend Trump's position; "But he's just talking about illegal immigrants!" Now he's going full-tilt on not only an American citizen, but a fucking sitting Judge! On the basis of his race!!!

If you're really about to say Trump isn't unabashedly racist, I'd like to see your stretching routine before you perform some Olympics-level mental gymnastics.

Edit: And he won't have a Muslim judge either! Exactly how white and Christian does his judge need to be?


I'm pretty sure because he never said he wants to kick out all Hispanics. And him thinking that a judge affiliated with La Raza might be biased against him is certainly not racist. It has nothing to do with the judge's race, but his affiliations. DalaiLama said it best (as usual).
GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
"
Antnee wrote:
Edit: And he won't have a Muslim judge either! Exactly how white and Christian does his judge need to be?


He has to have a degree from Trump University :-)

Maybe TheDonald thinks a "Jury of your Peers" includes a Judge of Your Peers.

Then again, maybe he's just trying to jazzercise his constitutional rights under the sixth amendment


"Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority."

"The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge. . . "

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment6/annotation04.html


Spoiler
Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Spoiler


Jury Trial

By the time the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights were drafted and ratified, the institution of trial by jury was almost universally revered, so revered that its history had been traced back to Magna Carta. 42 The jury began in the form of a grand or presentment jury with the role of inquest and was started by Frankish conquerors to discover the King's rights. Henry II regularized this type of proceeding to establish royal control over the machinery of justice, first in civil trials and then in criminal trials. Trial by petit jury was not employed at least until the reign of Henry III, in which the jury was first essentially a body of witnesses, called for their knowledge of the case; not until the reign of Henry VI did it become the trier of evidence. It was during the Seventeenth Century that the jury emerged as a safeguard for the criminally accused. 43 Thus, in the Eighteenth Century, Blackstone could commemorate the institution as part of a ''strong and two-fold barrier . . . between the liberties of the people and the prerogative of the crown'' because ''the truth of every accusation . . . . [must] be confirmed by the unanimous suffrage of twelve of his equals and neighbors indifferently chosen and superior to all suspicion.'' 44 The right was guaranteed in the constitutions of the original 13 States, was guaranteed in the body of the Constitu tion 45 and in the Sixth Amendment, and the constitution of every State entering the Union thereafter in one form or another protected the right to jury trial in criminal cases. 46 ''Those who emigrated to this country from England brought with them this great privilege 'as their birthright and inheritance, as a part of that admirable common law which had fenced around and interposed barriers on every side against the approaches of arbitrary power.''' 47

''The guarantees of jury trial in the Federal and State Constitutions reflect a profound judgment about the way in which law should be enforced and justice administered. A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government. Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge. . . . [T]he jury trial provisions . . . reflect a fundamental decision about the exercise of official power--a reluctance to entrust plenary powers over the life and liberty of the citizen to one judge or to a group of judges. Fear of unchecked power . . . found expression in the criminal law in this insistence upon community participation in the determination of guilt or innocence.'' 48

Because ''a general grant of jury trial for serious offenses is a fundamental right, essential for preventing miscarriages of justice and for assuring that fair trials are provided for all defendants,'' the Sixth Amendment provision is binding on the States through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 49 But inasmuch as it cannot be said that every criminal trial or any particular trial which is held without a jury is unfair, 50 it is possible for a defendant to waive the right and go to trial before a judge alone. 51


[Footnote 48] Duncan v. Louisiana, 391, U.S. 145, 155-56 (1968). At other times the function of accurate factfinding has been emphasized. E.g., McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 543 (1971). While federal judges may comment upon the evidence, the right to a jury trial means that the judge must make clear to the jurors that such remarks are advisory only and that the jury is the final determiner of all factual questions. Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466 (1933).

[Footnote 49] Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 158 -59 (1968).
PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910
Last edited by DalaiLama#6738 on Jun 7, 2016, 9:36:29 AM
"
Xavderion wrote:
And him thinking that a judge affiliated with La Raza might be biased against him is certainly not racist. It has nothing to do with the judge's race, but his affiliations. DalaiLama said it best (as usual).


Did Trump really mention anything else than that he was "Mexican"?
"
MrTremere wrote:
"
Xavderion wrote:
And him thinking that a judge affiliated with La Raza might be biased against him is certainly not racist. It has nothing to do with the judge's race, but his affiliations. DalaiLama said it best (as usual).


Did Trump really mention anything else than that he was "Mexican"?


Actually he does.

Here's the full interview

Donald trump "Face The Nation" Full Interview with John Dickerson June 5 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHoXC4HX-Z8

You can listen to the whole relevant section starting at 8:43

A couple key factors - Trump doesn't start out with Mexican heritage at all. He starts out with the judge is very biased against him.

His rationale starts with the plaintiff is unreliable, and the case should have been dismissed on summary judgement. Once the plaintiff was dismissed, the case should have been dismissed.
His next rationale is that the judge is a member of organizations...

Listen at

8:58

10:02

and

10:26


PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910
Last edited by DalaiLama#6738 on Jun 7, 2016, 9:52:31 AM
"
MrTremere wrote:
"
Xavderion wrote:
And him thinking that a judge affiliated with La Raza might be biased against him is certainly not racist. It has nothing to do with the judge's race, but his affiliations. DalaiLama said it best (as usual).


Did Trump really mention anything else than that he was "Mexican"?


Not if you only look at what le current year man cuts and pieces together. See above for full interview.
GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
Ok.

In this interview (which was 1 week after the start of the backlash), Donald Trump states that judge Curiel has been very unfair to him, stating that:
1) He should have won the case on summary judgement, because the complaint was inconsistent.
2) The case should have been dismissed, because she was removed as the plaintiff.

The issues here are that judge Curiel did exactly what he was supposed to do, as:
1) A summary judgement can only be applied if both parties agree on the facts, which was, clearly, not the case.
2) This case is a class action, which means that the plaintiff isn't a single person. What happened is simply a change of lead plaintiff for the case.


This means that there is no basis for the accusation of judge Curiel being unfair.

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info