Gingrich: Trump a 'gifted amateur,' judge comments not racist

[webfact]

Gingrich: Trump a 'gifted amateur,' judge comments not racist
By MJ Lee, CNN National Politics Reporter

(CNN)Days after slamming Donald Trump's comments about U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel as "inexcusable," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich stood by the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and called him a "gifted amateur."

Gingrich said Wednesday in an interview with CNN that he believes Trump has made "the kinds of mistakes that amateurs make," but that he is also "learning very, very fast."

"He's learned from it in the last two days and has taken very significant steps away from that and moved toward a more controlled, more civil approach," Gingrich said. "This is what he'll need to win the presidency."

Full story: http://us.cnn.com/2016/06/08/politics/newt-gingrich-donald-trump-amateur/index.html


-- CNN 2016-06-09

[MajarTheLion]

Of course the comments weren't racist. Mexican isn't a race. However, the judge in question is a member of a racist supremacy group. As such, he should preside over this trial nor be serving on the bench at all.

[Emster23]

Anyone who deems a person unsuitable simply because of ethnic background is racist by definition. Full stop.

I think need to check about that "racist supremacy group" There are groups with similar names, and most right wingers & Trump fans fail to note that. Facts not being their strong points. Here is the group judge belongs to http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/07/donald-trump/trump-wrongly-casts-california-lawyers-group-stron/

Edited June 9, 2016 by Emster23

[MajarTheLion]

Anyone who deems a person unsuitable simply because of ethnic background is racist by definition. Full stop.

I think need to check about that "racist supremacy group" There are groups with similar names, and most right wingers & Trump fans fail to note that. Facts not being their strong points. Here is the group judge belongs to http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/07/donald-trump/trump-wrongly-casts-california-lawyers-group-stron/

I see.... so we have what appears to be a case of word definition creep. Racism pertains to race. Mexican is not a race. It's quite simple. Politifact is left-leaning, so their findings are always suspect.

It's quite simple, really. La Raza means "The Race". Obviously if they think they are "the race", other races are subservient. A rational analysis requires one to gather information from a variety of sources. For example, I have included the opinion of leftist hispanic activist Cesar Chavez. He wanted nothing to do with La Raza specifically because they are racists. So a leftist admitting a group from his own side of the political spectrum is racist, and taking action to stay away from them because of it, is more valid than a political web sited dedicated to slanting political issues to the benefit of the left. Of course, there are many examples of La Raza being racist, but I am not one to try and make the horse drink water.

That said, of course there are right wing racist groups. However, that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Edited June 9, 2016 by MajarTheLion

[hugocnx]

"According to a United Nations convention, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination." (Google it up)

Because they (UN) say so doesn't mean it's got to be true (NOT), but racism is about a race, so false in this case. Better call it discrimination.

It is so popular these days to call anyone a racist, be it for stopping radical immigrants or pulling up a fence. Ok, might as well call me a racist then.

What about calling a black person from Africa a negro. What!! you damm racist, shame on you.

Errrrr, isn't that person from the negroid race or what? No no this is 2016 and there is no free speech any longer. You are a hate mongerer and Trump is too, so he must hang and therefor we use a racist judge.

It's inevitable.

[keemapoot]

With a slight spelling correction, this statement is true:

former House Speaker Newt Gingrich stood by the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and called him a "grifted amateur."

[up2u2]

Gingrich is an idiot. He wouldn't know his ass from his elbow. He is one of the reasons the Republican Party is looked an as a joke. Him and Palin just as ignorant as each other.

[djlest]

what worries me is if this Nutcase doesnt win this year, he may just run again next election and win.... wake up America! Or there wont be any tomorrow for you or the rest of the World due to your mistakes...

[Linzz]

Donald Trump assumed that Curiel would be biased, an Obama appointee, a reasonable assumption to make with the judge's ties to law firm Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd who also pursued a lawsuit against Trump in 2013. Senior partner Darren Robbins contributed $2,700 to Hillary Clinton's campaign on May 12, 2015..Also law firm Zaldes Haeggquist & Eck LLP who donated to MoveOn.Org a group organising protests at Trump rallies.

Interesting that the judge Curiel who wants to prosecute Trump over his university has announced the hearing on the day of the Republican Convention. That is political interference while his appointed law firm paid the Clintons $675,000 in speaking fees.

Unfortunately Trump used the ethnicity of Curiel which quickly became fodder for left wing pundits.He said that Curiel was Mexican and that he knew Trump was planning to build a wall, so again Trump presumed he would be biased and so therefore existed a conflict of interest.

Trump "telling it like it is" gets the popularity vote but also brings down on his head the vitriol of the left who turn a blind eye to the political manipulations and favor buying of the establishment elite

[Muzarella]

Trump is a amateur politician.... but an expert marketer and manipulator. Even if Sanders decide to support Clinton during her campaign, the Democratic party is more divided than the Republican, and my prediction is a Trump win. I do not like Clinton. I do not like Trump...but at least Trump may show that he is not fitted for a Presidency, and never come back after losing reelection in 4 years. If Clinton lose, she may not run in 4 years, and we may see new faces..Unfortunately Sanders will be too old to get into that in 4 years. Anyway...I am lucky to be in Thailand....

[MajarTheLion]

"According to a United Nations convention, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination." (Google it up)

Because they (UN) say so doesn't mean it's got to be true (NOT), but racism is about a race, so false in this case. Better call it discrimination.

It is so popular these days to call anyone a racist, be it for stopping radical immigrants or pulling up a fence. Ok, might as well call me a racist then.

What about calling a black person from Africa a negro. What!! you damm racist, shame on you.

Errrrr, isn't that person from the negroid race or what? No no this is 2016 and there is no free speech any longer. You are a hate mongerer and Trump is too, so he must hang and therefor we use a racist judge.

It's inevitable.

Excellent. We can certainly call it discrimination. That leads us to the next question. Is it simply because the judge is Mexican? Or is it also because he belongs to a racial supremacist group with views strongly opposed to those of Donald Trump regarding immigration policy in the United States? As is with most things, the answer is likely a combination of things.

The thing is, leftists will want to conceal anything about this judge that would give any rational doubts about this judge. There are plenty of things to criticize Donald Trump for. How he has handled this judge issue is certainly one of them. That said, the totality of the facts clearly indicate this judge should recuse himself from this case. It's a matter of judicial ethics.

[MajarTheLion]

Trump is a amateur politician.... but an expert marketer and manipulator. Even if Sanders decide to support Clinton during her campaign, the Democratic party is more divided than the Republican, and my prediction is a Trump win. I do not like Clinton. I do not like Trump...but at least Trump may show that he is not fitted for a Presidency, and never come back after losing reelection in 4 years. If Clinton lose, she may not run in 4 years, and we may see new faces..Unfortunately Sanders will be too old to get into that in 4 years. Anyway...I am lucky to be in Thailand....

The choices are clearly more dismal than ever. In one corner, we have a lady who's claim to fame is she was married to a president. Virtually everything she touches is a disaster. Russia reset, private email server hacked by who knows who, her days twisting arms of young women raped and/or harassed by her husband, disastrous foreign policy, beholden to foreign interests to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars via her money laundering operation, er, charitable foundation. In the other corner we have a smooth-talking salesman who plays fast and loose. I'll take the smooth talking salesman who has had real, actual success in life building, creating and employing over a political hack with a clear track record of failure and dishonesty.

That said, I think the powers that be will coming out strongly for Hillary Clinton. I hope your prediction is correct, but think Hillary will pull it off. And she will complete the mission Barack Hussein Obama started- to finish America off for good.

[MajarTheLion]

what worries me is if this Nutcase doesnt win this year, he may just run again next election and win.... wake up America! Or there wont be any tomorrow for you or the rest of the World due to your mistakes...

Don't worry, I think this is Bernie's last shot at it.

[stevenl]

"According to a United Nations convention, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination." (Google it up)

Because they (UN) say so doesn't mean it's got to be true (NOT), but racism is about a race, so false in this case. Better call it discrimination.

It is so popular these days to call anyone a racist, be it for stopping radical immigrants or pulling up a fence. Ok, might as well call me a racist then.

What about calling a black person from Africa a negro. What!! you damm racist, shame on you.

Errrrr, isn't that person from the negroid race or what? No no this is 2016 and there is no free speech any longer. You are a hate mongerer and Trump is too, so he must hang and therefor we use a racist judge.

It's inevitable.

Excellent. We can certainly call it discrimination. That leads us to the next question. Is it simply because the judge is Mexican? Or is it also because he belongs to a racial supremacist group with views strongly opposed to those of Donald Trump regarding immigration policy in the United States? As is with most things, the answer is likely a combination of things.

The thing is, leftists will want to conceal anything about this judge that would give any rational doubts about this judge. There are plenty of things to criticize Donald Trump for. How he has handled this judge issue is certainly one of them. That said, the totality of the facts clearly indicate this judge should recuse himself from this case. It's a matter of judicial ethics.

That is not the question, he made it very clear: because he is a Mexican.

[Chicog]

Gingrich should be in an old people's home with McCain.

The man is a buffoon.

[MajarTheLion]

Gingrich should be in an old people's home with McCain.

The man is a buffoon.

Agreed and I think this gets to the heart of the matter. Are we going to keep electing the same establishment clowns and expect a different result? Gingrich, Grahamnesty, McCain, McConnell, Pelosi, Reid et al have been a complete disaster. These people, who in my opinion compose 95% or more of the hacks in DC, are so insulated from reality they can't possibly make a proper decision on what is best for our country. And frankly, that's probably given many the benefit of serious doubt.

[MajarTheLion]

Gingrich is an idiot. He wouldn't know his ass from his elbow. He is one of the reasons the Republican Party is looked an as a joke. Him and Palin just as ignorant as each other.

I think you raise an excellent point. Why is it in the real world we look to successful people for advice and in politics we look to losers? Newt Gingrich had his shot, the people rejected him. He couldn't register more than a blip in the polls.

You reminded me of Megan McCain. A few years back, she was on some morning political hack show- probably Fox News. They were discussing some person't political campaign. At some point, Megan McCain says, "if I were advising him....." I thought wow, UNREAL. So being the daughter of a guy who ran a horrible campaign and lost now makes someone qualified to be a political adviser??????

And of course, examples of this are aplenty across the political spectrum.

[ilostmypassword]

"According to a United Nations convention, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination." (Google it up)

Because they (UN) say so doesn't mean it's got to be true (NOT), but racism is about a race, so false in this case. Better call it discrimination.

It is so popular these days to call anyone a racist, be it for stopping radical immigrants or pulling up a fence. Ok, might as well call me a racist then.

What about calling a black person from Africa a negro. What!! you damm racist, shame on you.

Errrrr, isn't that person from the negroid race or what? No no this is 2016 and there is no free speech any longer. You are a hate mongerer and Trump is too, so he must hang and therefor we use a racist judge.

It's inevitable.

By this kind of logic, Arabs can't be anti-semites because Arabs are semites.

And as for your ridiculous about Africans and Negro. If you were to say that a black person from Africa is a negro, fine (I won't go into the question if there really are separate races of humans. Scientific consensus says not). But if you were to say that a negro can't judge Donald Trump fairly, then that is racist. And that's the comparable example.

[MajarTheLion]

That is not the question, he made it very clear: because he is a Mexican.

It seems there is more to it than your reply indicates. From Politifact, the left-leaning "fact checkers" (emphasis added):

"On June 2, 2016, Trump told the Wall Street Journal that Curiel had "an absolute conflict" in presiding over the litigation given that he is "of Mexican heritage" and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association."

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/jun/08/donald-trumps-racial-comments-about-judge-trump-un/

So yes, the judge's membership in a racial supremacist group was and continues to be an issue with Trump's opposition to him.

[ilostmypassword]

Anyone who deems a person unsuitable simply because of ethnic background is racist by definition. Full stop.

I think need to check about that "racist supremacy group" There are groups with similar names, and most right wingers & Trump fans fail to note that. Facts not being their strong points. Here is the group judge belongs to http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/07/donald-trump/trump-wrongly-casts-california-lawyers-group-stron/

I see.... so we have what appears to be a case of word definition creep. Racism pertains to race. Mexican is not a race. It's quite simple. Politifact is left-leaning, so their findings are always suspect.

It's quite simple, really. La Raza means "The Race". Obviously if they think they are "the race", other races are subservient. A rational analysis requires one to gather information from a variety of sources. For example, I have included the opinion of leftist hispanic activist Cesar Chavez. He wanted nothing to do with La Raza specifically because they are racists. So a leftist admitting a group from his own side of the political spectrum is racist, and taking action to stay away from them because of it, is more valid than a political web sited dedicated to slanting political issues to the benefit of the left. Of course, there are many examples of La Raza being racist, but I am not one to try and make the horse drink water.

That said, of course there are right wing racist groups. However, that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Maybe, you speak Spanish, too. I do. And if you bother to find a scholarly source you would also find ir refers to ethnicity and culture. Just because 2 words in a different languages share the same root and sound similar, doesn't mean they mean the same thing. Ask for sausage in France without preservatives (sans preservatif) and you'd be asking for a sausage without condoms.

Chavez said the movement could be racist. He didn't define what the phrase, La RAza meant. In fact, in his autobiography he said said if it meant race that was bad, but if it meant pride in ethnicity and some such, it was ok.

And you seem determined to conflate The lawyers group with the national council. 2 different organizations.

Also, assiging La Raza to mean race makes no sense in the context of Mexicans since they come in many colors.

[hugocnx]

"According to a United Nations convention, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination." (Google it up)

Because they (UN) say so doesn't mean it's got to be true (NOT), but racism is about a race, so false in this case. Better call it discrimination.

It is so popular these days to call anyone a racist, be it for stopping radical immigrants or pulling up a fence. Ok, might as well call me a racist then.

What about calling a black person from Africa a negro. What!! you damm racist, shame on you.

Errrrr, isn't that person from the negroid race or what? No no this is 2016 and there is no free speech any longer. You are a hate mongerer and Trump is too, so he must hang and therefor we use a racist judge.

It's inevitable.

By this kind of logic, Arabs can't be anti-semites because Arabs are semites.

And as for your ridiculous about Africans and Negro. If you were to say that a black person from Africa is a negro, fine (I won't go into the question if there really are separate races of humans. Scientific consensus says not). But if you were to say that a negro can't judge Donald Trump fairly, then that is racist. And that's the comparable example.

Horses used to have blinds for not getting scared of left/right traffic in the 'old' days. They don't use those blinds anymore (no horses in traffic), but I can feel you still have yours on.

There was no mentioning of Arabs, they aren't a race, and if you say Arabs cannot be anti-semites, why not? You can hate your white neighbor to can't you?

As far as negro's go, they are a race because of distinct characteristics and as far as your blinds again, sorry man, I never said anything wrong about negro's judgement. It is maybe the leftist in you that puts words in my mouth.

Baan!

[arjunadawn]

Anyone who deems a person unsuitable simply because of ethnic background is racist by definition. Full stop.

I think need to check about that "racist supremacy group" There are groups with similar names, and most right wingers & Trump fans fail to note that. Facts not being their strong points. Here is the group judge belongs to http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/07/donald-trump/trump-wrongly-casts-california-lawyers-group-stron/

Likewise, anyone who offers superior qualification because of race must then too be racist. Enter justice Sotomayor.

In GA no trials have now been offered convicts based on all white Juries. The implicit reasoning is black people would offer a different verdict. Seems a valid point?

Accept the bait and bite, you are necessarily a racist and at best reveal the conundrum- In practice America holds white peoples and all others to different standards. This issue will help Trump, not hurt.

Most America is now numbly aware that in practice only white America can be racist, everyone else gets a free pass. It's no surprise since black liberation theology, infecting the larger progressive fold, holds black people are incapable by definition of racism because they are not the majority. This non sequitur underlies their thinking 'that racism can only be exercised by others.' It provides a Free Pass for all manner of hate, and it's moved into the socialist May Day La Raza worldview equally. Progressives and their media suck-ups really believe they own the 'race card,' and they get a free pass.

Curiel is a supremacist and at best enabler. He associates and advocates for those who break the law. As an officer of the court he defines unsuitability to...judge a case in which a man who rails against his associations has a case before him. He AIDS and abets, outside of court representation, crimes that Trump opposes.

But only socialists and anarchists can cry foul. These minds are diseased.

[ilostmypassword]

"According to a United Nations convention, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination." (Google it up)

Because they (UN) say so doesn't mean it's got to be true (NOT), but racism is about a race, so false in this case. Better call it discrimination.

It is so popular these days to call anyone a racist, be it for stopping radical immigrants or pulling up a fence. Ok, might as well call me a racist then.

What about calling a black person from Africa a negro. What!! you damm racist, shame on you.

Errrrr, isn't that person from the negroid race or what? No no this is 2016 and there is no free speech any longer. You are a hate mongerer and Trump is too, so he must hang and therefor we use a racist judge.

It's inevitable.

Excellent. We can certainly call it discrimination. That leads us to the next question. Is it simply because the judge is Mexican? Or is it also because he belongs to a racial supremacist group with views strongly opposed to those of Donald Trump regarding immigration policy in the United States? As is with most things, the answer is likely a combination of things.

The thing is, leftists will want to conceal anything about this judge that would give any rational doubts about this judge. There are plenty of things to criticize Donald Trump for. How he has handled this judge issue is certainly one of them. That said, the totality of the facts clearly indicate this judge should recuse himself from this case. It's a matter of judicial ethics.

Apart from the fact that your statements about the National Council of La Raza are just parrotings of the extreme right, the fact is that Judge Curiel is not a member of the National Council of La Raza. He is a member of an association called the La Raza lawyers of California. Two different organizations. The full name of Mexico is Los Estados Unidos de Mexico. Which means the United States of Mexico. Therefore, by your reasoning, Mexico and the USA are one country. Hey, maybe you should join the National Council of La Raza.

[arjunadawn]

"According to a United Nations convention, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination." (Google it up)

Because they (UN) say so doesn't mean it's got to be true (NOT), but racism is about a race, so false in this case. Better call it discrimination.

It is so popular these days to call anyone a racist, be it for stopping radical immigrants or pulling up a fence. Ok, might as well call me a racist then.

What about calling a black person from Africa a negro. What!! you damm racist, shame on you.

Errrrr, isn't that person from the negroid race or what? No no this is 2016 and there is no free speech any longer. You are a hate mongerer and Trump is too, so he must hang and therefor we use a racist judge.

It's inevitable.

How's it discrimination? With Trump having no means to quid pro quote or effect an harassing environment or adjudicate unfavorably for the judge, how is it discrimination?

Curiel is not unfit to adjudicate because of his ethnicity. He unfit because he favors his ethnicity to the detriment of law, and his docket has before him a man militating against what Curiel advocates and supports personally. Conflict of interest.

Discrimination may be simply a distinction but I find only has meaning when a person or group can withhold or apply something tangible, or such.

Edit: re read. See the sarcasm now. Got it. BTW, the slippery slope of 'racist' now has 'hate' also expanding to encompass all manner of political speech. If people can't see what's going on their children will suffer greatly.

Edited June 9, 2016 by arjunadawn

[ilostmypassword]

Anyone who deems a person unsuitable simply because of ethnic background is racist by definition. Full stop.

I think need to check about that "racist supremacy group" There are groups with similar names, and most right wingers & Trump fans fail to note that. Facts not being their strong points. Here is the group judge belongs to http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/07/donald-trump/trump-wrongly-casts-california-lawyers-group-stron/

Likewise, anyone who offers superior qualification because of race must then too be racist. Enter justice Sotomayor.

In GA no trials have now been offered convicts based on all white Juries. The implicit reasoning is black people would offer a different verdict. Seems a valid point?

Accept the bait and bite, you are necessarily a racist and at best reveal the conundrum- In practice America holds white peoples and all others to different standards. This issue will help Trump, not hurt.

Most America is now numbly aware that in practice only white America can be racist, everyone else gets a free pass. It's no surprise since black liberation theology, infecting the larger progressive fold, holds black people are incapable by definition of racism because they are not the majority. This non sequitur underlies their thinking 'that racism can only be exercised by others.' It provides a Free Pass for all manner of hate, and it's moved into the socialist May Day La Raza worldview equally. Progressives and their media suck-ups really believe they own the 'race card,' and they get a free pass.

Curiel is a supremacist and at best enabler. He associates and advocates for those who break the law. As an officer of the court he defines unsuitability to...judge a case in which a man who rails against his associations has a case before him. He AIDS and abets, outside of court representation, crimes that Trump opposes.

But only socialists and anarchists can cry foul. These minds are diseased.

In GA no trials have now been offered convicts based on all white Juries. The implicit reasoning is black people would offer a different verdict. Seems a valid point?No, you're wrong. The reason those cases have been judged to be infected with racism was because prosecutors singled out potential black jurors to be eliminated from selection because of their race. In a recent supreme court decision regarding just this, the vote was 7-1 to toss out the verdict. Get your facts straight. In fact, why not try to get hold of some facts instead assigning the views of a few lunatics and tarring everyone who disagrees with you with the same brush. I don't criticize you just because some extreme right wingers cite Alex Jones as a respectable source.

[ilostmypassword]

"According to a United Nations convention, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination." (Google it up)

Because they (UN) say so doesn't mean it's got to be true (NOT), but racism is about a race, so false in this case. Better call it discrimination.

It is so popular these days to call anyone a racist, be it for stopping radical immigrants or pulling up a fence. Ok, might as well call me a racist then.

What about calling a black person from Africa a negro. What!! you damm racist, shame on you.

Errrrr, isn't that person from the negroid race or what? No no this is 2016 and there is no free speech any longer. You are a hate mongerer and Trump is too, so he must hang and therefor we use a racist judge.

It's inevitable.

How's it discrimination? With Trump having no means to quid pro quote or effect an harassing environment or adjudicate unfavorably for the judge, how is it discrimination?

Curiel is not unfit to adjudicate because of his ethnicity. He unfit because he favors his ethnicity to the detriment of law, and his docket has before him a man militating against what Curiel advocates and supports personally. Conflict of interest.

Discrimination? Ha! Serious word gymnastics but considering socialism now owns "liberal" it's possible.

Edit: re read. See the sarcasm now. Got it. BTW, the slippery slope of 'racist' now has 'hate' also expanding to encompass all manner of political speech. If people can't see what's going on their children will suffer greatly.

Please cite a case where Curiel cited ethnicity to contravene accepted legal standards. Good luck with that.

[arjunadawn]

Donald Trump assumed that Curiel would be biased, an Obama appointee, a reasonable assumption to make with the judge's ties to law firm Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd who also pursued a lawsuit against Trump in 2013. Senior partner Darren Robbins contributed $2,700 to Hillary Clinton's campaign on May 12, 2015..Also law firm Zaldes Haeggquist & Eck LLP who donated to MoveOn.Org a group organising protests at Trump rallies.

Interesting that the judge Curiel who wants to prosecute Trump over his university has announced the hearing on the day of the Republican Convention. That is political interference while his appointed law firm paid the Clintons $675,000 in speaking fees.

Unfortunately Trump used the ethnicity of Curiel which quickly became fodder for left wing pundits.He said that Curiel was Mexican and that he knew Trump was planning to build a wall, so again Trump presumed he would be biased and so therefore existed a conflict of interest.

Trump "telling it like it is" gets the popularity vote but also brings down on his head the vitriol of the left who turn a blind eye to the political manipulations and favor buying of the establishment elite

Brilliant.

I find more than his political associations to be a conflict of interest. But the left owns race. Trump's comments on this judge simply cannot be divorced from Sotomayers comments. She is his Supreme. She defines race as relevant.

[NeverSure]

Surprise! Whacked out liberal MSM calls Trump racist!!

If the judge was white but belonged to a racist group, Trump would still rail against it. The issue isn't about race but about associations with people of known antagonist beliefs. The judge belongs to a group that is known to be antagonistic toward whites.

I would cry "foul" too.

Cheers.

[ilostmypassword]

Donald Trump assumed that Curiel would be biased, an Obama appointee, a reasonable assumption to make with the judge's ties to law firm Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd who also pursued a lawsuit against Trump in 2013. Senior partner Darren Robbins contributed $2,700 to Hillary Clinton's campaign on May 12, 2015..Also law firm Zaldes Haeggquist & Eck LLP who donated to MoveOn.Org a group organising protests at Trump rallies.

Interesting that the judge Curiel who wants to prosecute Trump over his university has announced the hearing on the day of the Republican Convention. That is political interference while his appointed law firm paid the Clintons $675,000 in speaking fees.

Unfortunately Trump used the ethnicity of Curiel which quickly became fodder for left wing pundits.He said that Curiel was Mexican and that he knew Trump was planning to build a wall, so again Trump presumed he would be biased and so therefore existed a conflict of interest.

Trump "telling it like it is" gets the popularity vote but also brings down on his head the vitriol of the left who turn a blind eye to the political manipulations and favor buying of the establishment elite

Brilliant.

I find more than his political associations to be a conflict of interest. But the left owns race. Trump's comments on this judge simply cannot be divorced from Sotomayers comments. She is his Supreme. She defines race as relevant.

You mean Curiel is somehow responsible for what Sotomayor said? The only link I can see is that they're both Latino. If that's what you're saying, then that's racist.

[NeverSure]

Donald Trump assumed that Curiel would be biased, an Obama appointee, a reasonable assumption to make with the judge's ties to law firm Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd who also pursued a lawsuit against Trump in 2013. Senior partner Darren Robbins contributed $2,700 to Hillary Clinton's campaign on May 12, 2015..Also law firm Zaldes Haeggquist & Eck LLP who donated to MoveOn.Org a group organising protests at Trump rallies.

Interesting that the judge Curiel who wants to prosecute Trump over his university has announced the hearing on the day of the Republican Convention. That is political interference while his appointed law firm paid the Clintons $675,000 in speaking fees.

Unfortunately Trump used the ethnicity of Curiel which quickly became fodder for left wing pundits.He said that Curiel was Mexican and that he knew Trump was planning to build a wall, so again Trump presumed he would be biased and so therefore existed a conflict of interest.

Trump "telling it like it is" gets the popularity vote but also brings down on his head the vitriol of the left who turn a blind eye to the political manipulations and favor buying of the establishment elite

Brilliant.

I find more than his political associations to be a conflict of interest. But the left owns race. Trump's comments on this judge simply cannot be divorced from Sotomayers comments. She is his Supreme. She defines race as relevant.

You mean Curiel is somehow responsible for what Sotomayor said? The only link I can see is that they're both Latino. If that's what you're saying, then that's racist.

Wow. Someone surely must have messed with your head about what racist means. It was Sotomayor who discussed race and quoting her isn't racist.