I was wondering why that guys name was so familiar...
It's the, "I Don't Recall" guy! Oh what a time that was. The guy fired a bunch of democratic US Attorneys so he would know something about bias judging at least.
I was wondering why that guys name was so familiar...
It's the, "I Don't Recall" guy! Oh what a time that was. The guy fired a bunch of democratic US Attorneys so he would know something about bias judging at least.
Your argument is effectively like saying the 'Manchester United Fan Group of Greater Manchester' probably doesn't support Manchester United because they're not officially affiliated the club.Originally Posted by phonics
I assumed Mert would love Trump despite the fact Trump would probably be seething inside if he had to shake hands with Mert.
Barack Hussein Obama sez: 'I don’t think there’s ever been someone so qualified [as 'Hillary'] to hold this office'. Gutted, Eisenhower, mate.
It's gone right off.
She's the most qualified person in America at the minute.
I still say that nobody is really 'qualified' for it, but Colin Powell ticks all the boxes (Stansfield Turner is still alive as well).
Lol so much for the Judge gaffe having any effect on Trump, the God Emperor leading in Florida:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...ad-heat-in-fla
Trump puts DEEP BLUE Connecticut into play, only down 4 (Romney lost by 18):
http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/...mp-7956289.php
Fukin rect. The God Emperor remains un-stumable. Next 5 months are going to be awesome.
The MELTDOWN if he won would be incredible. Not least because the 'Bernie' people will go to their graves thinking that he would have beaten him.
I'm telling you, he's going to win. The media is very very out of touch with how actual Americans feel, I have no doubt he will vastly out perform polls.
Trump tied with Clinton in support among Latinos:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opi...on-rise-at-37/
In a way I'm fully on board the lolmobile, but in another way, if he wins that will just fuel the self-righteous pillocks over here into further anti-Americanism, so meh.
Our po-faced commentariat have all en masse decided Hillary is absolutely wonderful within the last 48 hours, so that's bad news for her as they haven't got anything right since about 2004.
I'm fully on board the Trump train.
You'll certainly deserve the e-victory if he does, since we've all lolled at it.
And we'll promptly lol when Mert's student visa expires and he's punted off to Turkey.
It's a real shame there are no frats to rush at McGill.
What the fuck mate.
Not sure if serious; are you unaware that both my parents are citizens, and I was born and lived most of my life in Virginia?
It's going to objectively suck. But you can lead a horse to water, etc.
It's an amusingly misjudged Warhammer reference.
Again, you can't talk to people like this. Opening any post with a meme just sets you up as some sort of brain damaged toilet. You're studying law or something, right? What kind of opening statement is, "u wot m8!?"
Brain damaged toilet.
Still Turkish, a nation that is crushing free speech across Europe if you didn't know, and you hate America, the greatest nation on earth, because Muslims hate America so clearly you should hand your passport in as you cannot be trusted not to be a proud American, you just can't be trusted, because you are Turkish.
It's fun talking like 'God Emporers'
The most interesting angle on Trump is probably the efforts to prove he's worth a lot less than he says he is. He still refuses to release his tax returns, and their was a story last week examining some tax exemption he applied for which put his income last year at less than $500k. Normally with these sort of things you'd be suspicious of tax irregularities but with Trump it's far more likely he's holding back because any disclosure would confirm he's not quite as loaded as he says he is.
You realize America doesn't work that way right? It is accepting of immigrants and considers them all American. Putting aside your bigotry, I'm ethnically Armenian (my mother is Orthodox) and Circassian; I am not 'Turkish' (to the extent that refers to Muslims from Anatolia).
My bigotry
You literally accused a federal judge of being unable to get over the fact that his parents are Mexican as cause to call him incompetent and unreliable, as well as tying him to an 'extremist' society that there's zero evidence of him being part of, on the last page. Because his parents are Mexican. That's your entire argument.
The real DT trolling Clintz on Twitter is absolutely amazing.
140k RTs.
So I guess you're also calling Justice Sotomayor, the first Latina POC on the Supreme Court and one of it's most liberal members, racist too?My bigotry
You literally accused a federal judge of being unable to get over the fact that his parents are Mexican as cause to call him incompetent and unreliable, as well as tying him to an 'extremist' society that there's zero evidence of him being part of, on the last page. Because his parents are Mexican. That's your entire argument.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...se_130828.html
"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences ... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."
The next few months here are going to be wonderful / mental. If there's not a riot at some point, I'll be disappointed.
Of course your belief system makes a difference in your judging but as long as you're applying the law, that literally doesn't matter. Should no Jewish lawyer be able to try an Islamic terrorist because the defendant probably isn't a big fan of Israel?
There are judges that will hand down harsher punishments than other judges based on their beliefs. That's what they're there for, to exercise judgement within certain parameters based on the arguments laid before them.
You're going to law school and I'm having to explain the basic notions of objective v subjective... No wonder you're having such a tough time.
edit: P.S. Both your examples of appealing to authority have explained in those very articles why you're wrong. It's okay if you can't find a source to agree with you, just pretend or link to something that you found on Stormfront, Harold did it for years.
Yes and according to Sotomayor those beliefs are based in or influenced by characteristics like ethnic background, gender, etc. How is this any different from what Trump implied?
Trump said it's a conflict of interest and the judge must recuse himself of an ongoing case. For being Mexican. It's both an attack on the idea of an independent judiciary and racist. That's the difference.
Your only defence of it is that he has ties to some extremist Latino group that he doesn't have and there's not even a shred of proof that he has ever had. So even you know this is ridiculous and yet you still defend it. It's embarrassing.
First of all it's not because he's Mexican, it's because he's affilliated with radical Leftist "Latino Interest" anti-Trump groups. Second, if you accept what Sotomayor says as true, isn't it indeed a conflict of interest? Or is she a racist too? You can't have it both ways.
For the record I don't agree or support Trump's comments, but am more concerned with the unsurprising hypocrisy of liberals in its wake.
If this was the case, he wouldn't have doubled down with "I don't think a Muslim judge could give me a fair trial either". The question that led to that statement had nothing to do with affiliations, and everything to do with heritage.
It's a serious stretch to say that Sotomayors comment implies a judge not conducting a fair trial, which is what The Donald claims is happening to him, and would happen if a Muslim judge presided over his case.
"he said, it “would be possible, absolutely” that he would consider a Muslim judge inappropriate in court."
Nothing to do with him being Mexican of course.
You're conflating two completely seperate groups. Completely seperate. Nothing to do with each other.it's because he's affilliated with radical Leftist "Latino Interest" anti-Trump groups.
This literally makes no sense.Second, if you accept what Sotomayor says as true, isn't it indeed a conflict of interest? Or is she a racist too? You can't have it both ways.
Sure.For the record I don't agree or support Trump's comments, but am more concerned with the unsurprising hypocrisy of liberals in its wake.
At least Harold was good at this.
Yes please tell me more about the inaccurate distortions by mainstream media. Here is Trump's official statement which reitierates what I said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/us...ment.html?_r=0
A week later, not written by him, after getting eviscerated by the people ON HIS OWN SIDE. That's me convinced. What a compelling argument.
Are you retarded, he's implying that a radical Mexican nationalist would potentially be biased, just like a radical Islamist might be biased under certain circumstances. His statement explains this point further.
"he said, it “would be possible, absolutely” that he would consider a Muslim judge inappropriate in court."
Nothing to do with him being Mexican of course.
You're conflating two completely seperate groups. Completely seperate. Nothing to do with each other.
This literally makes no sense.
Sure.
At least Harold was good at this.
Again we went over this example. The Greater Manchester Manchester United Supporter's Club is not affiliated with Manchester United, they are indeed SEPERATE!!, but to pretend as if the Manchester United Supporter's Group doesn't support Manchester United (which is effectively what you're metaphorically claiming) is laughable.
What would be more likely to spark riots, a Trump or a Clinton election?
What makes him a Radical Mexican Nationalist?
Can black judges not preside over police violence cases that involve white officers attacking a black man?
Can Jewish judges not preside over cases involving Islamic extremism?
Can no latino judge oversee an immigration case?
Can no female judge oversee a sexual harassment suit?
The world is full of bias and beliefs, as long as you're interpreting law based on the arguments made in court, none of it matters. Unless you have a direct conflict of interest that can be proven in court through a recusal motion.
Trump has tried to get this guy to recuse himself by leaning on him via the media, or his lawyers would have asked for the Judges recusal. But they didn't because they know there's no conflict of interest. It's a massive attack on the independent judiciary and Mr "OBAMA IS A DICTATOR WHO RUNS ROUGHSHOD OVER THE THREE BRANCHES" should be able to see this.
It's not because he's Mexican. How many times do I need to say this?
Change Black with card-carrying Black Panther member and Black Nationalist.
Change Jewish with card-carrying Jewish Supremacist/Zionist group member.
Etc.
That's the real comparison.
That would easily be possible to prove in court, this apparently isn't.
That would easily be possible to prove in court, this apparently isn't.
Where's the proof? Because Donald Trumps lawyers certainly don't have it. They need you to hurry up and finish that law degree. Maybe they should check his wallet for his Radical Mexican Nationalist card.
Okay:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/01/ju...lawyers-group/
They're not the same thing. Not sure how many times this can be stated.
Sums up this page well.
edit: Stupid embed doesn't highlight the actual tweet.
Trump not getting the nomination at the GOP convention, I reckon
Clinton would spark IRL riots, Trump would spark Facebook riots.
No one will riot if Clinton wins. One or two 'peaceful demonstrations' drowned by liberal tears might occur if Trump wins. Twitter, of course, would go bananas.
Reading about how fantastic Elizabeth Warren is is getting a bit boring.
Trump's already sparked some shaky protests.
Reply With Quote
