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

[arjunadawn]

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.

It's really amazing one man given a platform by the media Trumps thousands given a platform by the media. One side is screaming 'they are acting supremacist or have reason to believe will,' and the other screams 'we are supreme, we are The Race and lawyers for The Race,' and burn another nation's flag to prove it. (This is the association suggested, indeed evidenced by Curiel's advocacy for illegals).

Admonishment is reserved for the side that protests the racism/supremacy; a free pass provided for the racists/supremacists. It MUST be observed that the same exact thing is happening in EU. How is this possible? There are such markedly different agents involved?

Because the common element is Progressivism and it's bastard agenda. There is no other explanation that ties these disparate worlds together. One can object to the conclusions, but hardly the premise-

Socialism/Progressivism fosters resentment and insurgency by the Balkanized special interests they advocate for. Like loqusts, they then consume the land until they too overwhelm themselves.

*It should be remembered that the US currently there are a number of different examples where adjudication bodies are considered biased by virtue of white people present, but we don't read about these simultaneous current events.

[ilostmypassword]

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.

But making Curiel somehow responsible for what she said is racist.

[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.

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.

Curiel is a justice. Sotomayer is a Supreme Court Justice, the final arbiter of precedent and interpretation.

"The ethnicity and sex of a judge may and will make a difference in judging. Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. To judge is an exercise of power .there is no objective stance only a series of perspectives. Personal experiences affect the facts that a judge chooses to see. A woman of color more often than not will reach a better conclusion than a white male." Sotomayer

The ethnicity of a judge will make a difference in judging!

Our national origins will make a difference in our judging!

Personal experiences influence what a judge chooses to see!

A Latino man will reach a better conclusion than a white man!

Of course it's relevant. Going to the net to pull the quote I'm pleased to find lots of others also see the problem here, notwithstanding deconstructionists on TV.

*Its actually disgusting, besides the race, because it asserts the progressive platform of equality in outcomes- like Clinton, she felt comfortable [betraying her racism] because she felt it her due to be a SCOTUS judge.

[ilostmypassword]

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.

Curiel is a justice. Sotomayer is a Supreme Court Justice, the final arbiter of precedent and interpretation.

"The ethnicity and sex of a judge may and will make a difference in judging. Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. To judge is an exercise of power .there is no objective stance only a series of perspectives. Personal experiences affect the facts that a judge chooses to see. A woman of color more often than not will reach a better conclusion than a white male." Sotomayer

The ethnicity of a judge will make a difference in judging!

Our national origins will make a difference in our judging!

Personal experiences influence what a judge chooses to see!

A Latino man will reach a better conclusion than a white man!

Of course it's relevant. Going to the net to pull the quote I'm pleased to find lots of others also see the problem here, notwithstanding deconstructionists on TV.

*Its actually disgusting, besides the race, because it asserts the progressive platform of equality in outcomes- like Clinton, she felt comfortable [betraying her racism] because she felt it her due to be a SCOTUS judge.

But why does this specifically affect Curiel as opposed to some judge of say, Norwegian extraction?

[boomerangutang]

And if Trump as prez got offended by a leader of Bungodawanaland, Trump might fire a couple nukes at the upstart's kingdom. Newt would at first say it was an over-reaction. But then 2 days later, Newt would speak up again and say, "Trump is a fast learner. He learns from his mistakes. The mushroom cloud is fading, not too many people got killed by the nukes. Let move on, shall we folks?"

[bamukloy]

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

What you say certainly makes sense to me.

From your theory and the facts you put forward, it nearly looks like the whole thing was a clever ruse.

It looks to me like they are simply baiting him and they know both ways, Trump cant win.

1-If the plan to nail Trump works, they will succeed in discrediting him.

2- If Trump speaks out, he will hang himself big time, via his big mouth.

Of course they knew No2 would prevail, as they know Trump can't help himself.

He is just simply not clever enough to smell a set-up, and therby form a counter strategy that doesnt involve him firing his mouth off and discrediting himself yet again.

It was a bit like the reporter that set him up with the women getting punished for abortions thing.

Blind Freddy could see where it was going but Trump walked straight into it.

I guess being day to day president has a safety net of having many good minds behind you, with a mediocum of time to make educated and balanced decisions.

The initial over the top rants and over-reactions dont inspire much confidence in me, but maybe its what the American people want.

maybe they see that behaviour as being that of a man of action.

I guess you cant blame them if the alternate option is a limp sock puppet

[NeverSure]

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.

Curiel is a justice. Sotomayer is a Supreme Court Justice, the final arbiter of precedent and interpretation.

"The ethnicity and sex of a judge may and will make a difference in judging. Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. To judge is an exercise of power .there is no objective stance only a series of perspectives. Personal experiences affect the facts that a judge chooses to see. A woman of color more often than not will reach a better conclusion than a white male." Sotomayer

The ethnicity of a judge will make a difference in judging!

Our national origins will make a difference in our judging!

Personal experiences influence what a judge chooses to see!

A Latino man will reach a better conclusion than a white man!

Of course it's relevant. Going to the net to pull the quote I'm pleased to find lots of others also see the problem here, notwithstanding deconstructionists on TV.

*Its actually disgusting, besides the race, because it asserts the progressive platform of equality in outcomes- like Clinton, she felt comfortable [betraying her racism] because she felt it her due to be a SCOTUS judge.

But why does this specifically affect Curiel as opposed to some judge of say, Norwegian extraction?

It's about a group that judge belongs to which is patently racist and frankly, anti-white. How could a Norwegian be relevant to the discussion?

You have a real talent for missing the plot. Trump specifically objected to being judged by a man who belongs to groups that are notoriously anti-white. End of.

Cheers.

[arjunadawn]

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.

Curiel is a justice. Sotomayer is a Supreme Court Justice, the final arbiter of precedent and interpretation.

"The ethnicity and sex of a judge may and will make a difference in judging. Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. To judge is an exercise of power .there is no objective stance only a series of perspectives. Personal experiences affect the facts that a judge chooses to see. A woman of color more often than not will reach a better conclusion than a white male." Sotomayer

The ethnicity of a judge will make a difference in judging!

Our national origins will make a difference in our judging!

Personal experiences influence what a judge chooses to see!

A Latino man will reach a better conclusion than a white man!

Of course it's relevant. Going to the net to pull the quote I'm pleased to find lots of others also see the problem here, notwithstanding deconstructionists on TV.

*Its actually disgusting, besides the race, because it asserts the progressive platform of equality in outcomes- like Clinton, she felt comfortable [betraying her racism] because she felt it her due to be a SCOTUS judge.

But why does this specifically affect Curiel as opposed to some judge of say, Norwegian extraction?

It's about a group that judge belongs to which is patently racist and frankly, anti-white. How could a Norwegian be relevant to the discussion?

You have a real talent for missing the plot. Trump specifically objected to being judged by a man who belongs to groups that are notoriously anti-white. End of.

Cheers.

Fallacy of false analogy. It's a logic deficit when consistent. In an emotive inner world emotion and logic are indistinguishable. That it can be asserted but not argued that Sotomayer's statement is unrelated suggests this fact.

[ThaiTony2]

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/

Of course there is more to that. Did you visit their website and suggested links? Do some homework!

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.

[Linzz]

The whole incident is a distraction and intended as such. So some students were unhappy with a university course and Trump presumed there was conflict of interest with the judge on the case and there would be bias. Sotomayor's ethnicity statements prove Trump was right....Next....

The distraction is removing focus on the real criminality and that is the investigation into HRC's mishandling of classified material on her unprotected private server which had hacking attempts which further jeopardized national security while she knew it was illegal to do so. Now the investigation is delving into potential corruption with the favorable treatment donors were given to her private foundation by the State Department she was running.

Edit:Now Obama puts his arm around her with an endorsement.

This is the real issue

Edited June 10, 2016 by Linzz

[Si Thea01]

Can those calling Trump a racist for calling the judge Mexican, please explain how he is being racist. If someone was born in the USA, therefore, is an American citizen, but is called a Mexican, does not appear racist to me but I am sure someone on here will let met know why it is given some of the comments already posted.

If some one calls me a "Mick" because of my heritage, then given this line of thought, it suggests that they too are being racist and I should be offended. Highly unlikely. Given it's the left calling this out, they're only up their old tricks of trying to stifle or shut down the debate by playing the "Racist Card" and are suckering in some of the Republicans to also bag Trump.

I am not an American and it does not worry me who wins but just to see the smiles wiped of the faces of the smug lefties and the others bagging the guy, it would give me great satisfaction to see Donald TRUMP Hilary. And yes, Trump has made a lot of mistakes, but it's funny how those criticising him tend to forget all about Hilary's failures and are remaining soundly silent in that regard.

[Credo]

Trump is being racist because he is profiling the person on the basis of his ethnicity and heritage.

[Pimay1]

Trump is being racist because he is profiling the person on the basis of his ethnicity and heritage.

Ya think?

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/06/09/whites-go-back-europe-california-hispanic-state-said-founder-judge-curiels-group/

[JDGRUEN]

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/

La Raza -- The Race is a ethnic superiority group that has made many announcements that their goal is to retake lands from the U.S. in the South West that they believe was taken from them... The group has made statements that are nothing less than supporting a movement to overthrow the authority of the Unites States in these areas. It is called Reconquista referring to reconquering lands taken by force. How a Federal judge can be a member of such a group and not have that membership held up as bias in this case is beyond reason ....

The judge belongs to and supports a group hell bent on taking away parts of the United States by force if necessary ... case closed ...

Edited June 10, 2016 by JDGRUEN

[spidermike007]

Trump is a bigot, a racist, a woman hater, and a pig. You cannot portray a pig as a gentleman. That is just a pig in camouflage. He represents everything that is wrong with contemporary American culture. He is as inferior a candidate as possible. Judging by their body language, not even immediate family is fond of him. A pig is a pig no matter how hard he tries to appear otherwise.

[Berkshire]

Can those calling Trump a racist for calling the judge Mexican, please explain how he is being racist. If someone was born in the USA, therefore, is an American citizen, but is called a Mexican, does not appear racist to me but I am sure someone on here will let met know why it is given some of the comments already posted.

Hmmm, is this a genuine question? Ok then, here's the answer as you may not be aware of the big picture:

Former students of Trump University bring a case against Trump/Trump University alleging fraud.

Judge Curiel is the judge presiding. He was born in America, but parents are from Mexico.

Judge doesn't throw out the case because the evidence suggest the case has merit.

Trump is furious because he wants the case thrown out (will cost him big if he loses).

He attacks the judge for being Mexican, which is to say, the judge can't be impartial/fair because Trump has been anti-Mexican throughout his presidential campaign.

Trump's allegations are bothersome because:

1. Attacking a federal judge simply because he doesn't rule in your favor shows a disrespect of the courts and American judicial system.

2. Citing a judge's race/ethnicity in said attack is pure racism. Has nothing to do with the case--even Trump's own lawyers agree the man's race is irrelevant.

[ilostmypassword]

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.

It's really amazing one man given a platform by the media Trumps thousands given a platform by the media. One side is screaming 'they are acting supremacist or have reason to believe will,' and the other screams 'we are supreme, we are The Race and lawyers for The Race,' and burn another nation's flag to prove it. (This is the association suggested, indeed evidenced by Curiel's advocacy for illegals).

Admonishment is reserved for the side that protests the racism/supremacy; a free pass provided for the racists/supremacists. It MUST be observed that the same exact thing is happening in EU. How is this possible? There are such markedly different agents involved?

Because the common element is Progressivism and it's bastard agenda. There is no other explanation that ties these disparate worlds together. One can object to the conclusions, but hardly the premise-

Socialism/Progressivism fosters resentment and insurgency by the Balkanized special interests they advocate for. Like loqusts, they then consume the land until they too overwhelm themselves.

*It should be remembered that the US currently there are a number of different examples where adjudication bodies are considered biased by virtue of white people present, but we don't read about these simultaneous current events.

It should be remembered that the US currently there are a number of different examples where adjudication bodies are considered biased by virtue of white people present, but we don't read about these simultaneous current events.

Examples? Please be specific.

Edited June 10, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[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.

Sotomayor is whose Supreme? Do you mean Curies? Is Justice homas Curiel's Supreme? Is Justice Alito Curiel's Supreme? How about Roberts or Ginzburg and the rest of the Supreme Court Justices? Are they also his Supreme?

[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/

La Raza -- The Race is a ethnic superiority group that has made many announcements that their goal is to retake lands from the U.S. in the South West that they believe was taken from them... The group has made statements that are nothing less than supporting a movement to overthrow the authority of the Unites States in these areas. It is called Reconquista referring to reconquering lands taken by force. How a Federal judge can be a member of such a group and not have that membership held up as bias in this case is beyond reason ....

The judge belongs to and supports a group hell bent on taking away parts of the United States by force if necessary ... case closed ...

Good thing that he is not a member of La Raza. He is a member of the La Raza California Lawyers association. Why do you persist in lying?

[Linzz]

Decide for yourselves if there are connections or not.

NEW YORK – The federal judge presiding over the Trump University class action lawsuit is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, a group that while not a branch of the National Council of La Raza, has ties to the controversial organization, which translates literally “The Race.”

http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/trump-u-judges-group-tied-to-national-council-of-laraza/

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/06/meet-the-pro-illegal-immigrant-groups-the-la-raza-lawyers-of-san-diego-consider-part-of-their-community/

[Berkshire]

Decide for yourselves if there are connections or not.

NEW YORK – The federal judge presiding over the Trump University class action lawsuit is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, a group that while not a branch of the National Council of La Raza, has ties to the controversial organization, which translates literally “The Race.”

http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/trump-u-judges-group-tied-to-national-council-of-laraza/

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/06/meet-the-pro-illegal-immigrant-groups-the-la-raza-lawyers-of-san-diego-consider-part-of-their-community/

Right-wing conspiracies aside, can't you see the glaringly obvious: If there were grounds to remove this judge from the case due to bias/conflict-of-interest, wouldn't TRUMP'S OWN LAWYERS have done it already?

[JDGRUEN]

Trump is a bigot, a racist, a woman hater, and a pig. You cannot portray a pig as a gentleman. That is just a pig in camouflage. He represents everything that is wrong with contemporary American culture. He is as inferior a candidate as possible. Judging by their body language, not even immediate family is fond of him. A pig is a pig no matter how hard he tries to appear otherwise.

Those are some really deep thoughts / not - and only reflect your limited ability to understand the full gamut of issues in play in the USA in this election cycle... You uttering such tripe (pardon the pun) is a waste of time... as it will have zero affect on anyone except those who have already decided to not vote for or support Trump ... You are grunting to the choir ...

[JDGRUEN]

Decide for yourselves if there are connections or not.

NEW YORK – The federal judge presiding over the Trump University class action lawsuit is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, a group that while not a branch of the National Council of La Raza, has ties to the controversial organization, which translates literally “The Race.”

http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/trump-u-judges-group-tied-to-national-council-of-laraza/

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/06/meet-the-pro-illegal-immigrant-groups-the-la-raza-lawyers-of-san-diego-consider-part-of-their-community/

Right-wing conspiracies aside, can't you see the glaringly obvious: If there were grounds to remove this judge from the case due to bias/conflict-of-interest, wouldn't TRUMP'S OWN LAWYERS have done it already?

There would have to be fairness in the system to get that done ... and fairness is sorely lacking... The heavy majority of Federal Judges in the U.S. are Liberal - even Leftist ...

[JDGRUEN]

Trump is being racist because he is profiling the person on the basis of his ethnicity and heritage.

And the Judge by his questionable associations with LA RAZA an extremist ethnic group hell bent on taking back lands from South West U.S. causes the judge to profile Trump for his race - a Caucasian - White person. This is BIAS plane and simple -- Racial Bias...

One La Raza official in Texas is known for his quote to kill whites some several yeas back. Yet the Judge will not disavowal his relationship with a Racist Biased Group ... La Raza - The RACE. And seems to be proud of it... displaying his allegiance with a racist group know for violent statements and a goal of usurping land from the United States of America by force if necessary ...

[Si Thea01]

Can those calling Trump a racist for calling the judge Mexican, please explain how he is being racist. If someone was born in the USA, therefore, is an American citizen, but is called a Mexican, does not appear racist to me but I am sure someone on here will let met know why it is given some of the comments already posted.

Hmmm, is this a genuine question? Ok then, here's the answer as you may not be aware of the big picture:

Former students of Trump University bring a case against Trump/Trump University alleging fraud.

Judge Curiel is the judge presiding. He was born in America, but parents are from Mexico.

Judge doesn't throw out the case because the evidence suggest the case has merit.

Trump is furious because he wants the case thrown out (will cost him big if he loses).

He attacks the judge for being Mexican, which is to say, the judge can't be impartial/fair because Trump has been anti-Mexican throughout his presidential campaign.

Trump's allegations are bothersome because:

1. Attacking a federal judge simply because he doesn't rule in your favor shows a disrespect of the courts and American judicial system.

2. Citing a judge's race/ethnicity in said attack is pure racism. Has nothing to do with the case--even Trump's own lawyers agree the man's race is irrelevant.

What makes you think that what I asked was not a genuine inquiry? If it wasn't, it would not have been asked. Thanks for your response, it provides an insight into the thoughts of others. I respect your outlining of the bigger picture, however, having read a considerable amount on this aspect I believe there is more to it than you have outlined.

Trump, regardless of what people say, has the right, under the American Constitution, to free speech and is able to speak his mind, even if many do not like what he says. And, as I also asked, if one is born in America, then how can calling him a Mexican, which he is not, be racist. His heritage is Mexican, through his parents but given what Trump said, and the definition of Racist, the two do not gel, as he did not put any of them down in any way.

So to call someone a Mexican, which he is not, is racist, then what about someone who is Australian being called an Irish Mick, even if they were born in Australia but whose parents were Irish. Same train of thought can be applied or maybe there is a 3rd definition of racism that I am not aware of. The only part that people are calling him out for being racist is the use of the word Mexican, nothing else, therefore, given the rest that you have mentioned is irrelevant and has nothing to do with racism, so why is the Racist card being played?

Edited June 10, 2016 by Si Thea01

[Berkshire]

Can those calling Trump a racist for calling the judge Mexican, please explain how he is being racist. If someone was born in the USA, therefore, is an American citizen, but is called a Mexican, does not appear racist to me but I am sure someone on here will let met know why it is given some of the comments already posted.

Hmmm, is this a genuine question? Ok then, here's the answer as you may not be aware of the big picture:

Former students of Trump University bring a case against Trump/Trump University alleging fraud.

Judge Curiel is the judge presiding. He was born in America, but parents are from Mexico.

Judge doesn't throw out the case because the evidence suggest the case has merit.

Trump is furious because he wants the case thrown out (will cost him big if he loses).

He attacks the judge for being Mexican, which is to say, the judge can't be impartial/fair because Trump has been anti-Mexican throughout his presidential campaign.

Trump's allegations are bothersome because:

1. Attacking a federal judge simply because he doesn't rule in your favor shows a disrespect of the courts and American judicial system.

2. Citing a judge's race/ethnicity in said attack is pure racism. Has nothing to do with the case--even Trump's own lawyers agree the man's race is irrelevant.

What makes you think that what I asked was not a genuine inquiry? If it wasn't, it would not have been asked. Thanks for your response, it provides an insight into the thoughts of others. I respect your outlining of the bigger picture, however, having read a considerable amount on this aspect I believe there is more to it than you have outlined.

Trump, regardless of what people say, has the right, under the American Constitution, to free speech and is able to speak his mind, even if many do not like what he says. And, as I also asked, if one is born in America, then how can calling him a Mexican, which he is not, be racist. His heritage is Mexican, through his parents but given what Trump said, and the definition of Racist, the two do not gel, as he did not put any of them down in any way.

So to call someone a Mexican, which he is not, is racist, then what about someone who is Australian being called an Irish Mick, even if they were born in Australia but whose parents were Irish. Same train of thought can be applied or maybe there is a 3rd definition of racism that I am not aware of. The only part that people are calling him out for being racist is the use of the word Mexican, nothing else, therefore, given the rest that you have mentioned is irrelevant and has nothing to do with racism, so why is the Racist card being played?

The judge is an American of Mexican heritage. It's racist because Trump is suggesting that the Judge cannot be fair and impartial (i.e., do his job) simply because of his ethnicity. There is no proof that this judge has ever been biased in any case due to his ethnicity. Besides, this case has nothing to do with Mexico, but about whether Trump University is a fraud (from all the evidence that I've read, it most certainly is). I'm not sure how else to explain it to you. Essentially, what Trump is saying is that he has been racist towards Mexico and since the Judge is of Mexican heritage, then the Judge MUST be offended and therefore, not able to rule impartially.

[Linzz]

Can those calling Trump a racist for calling the judge Mexican, please explain how he is being racist. If someone was born in the USA, therefore, is an American citizen, but is called a Mexican, does not appear racist to me but I am sure someone on here will let met know why it is given some of the comments already posted.

Hmmm, is this a genuine question? Ok then, here's the answer as you may not be aware of the big picture:

Former students of Trump University bring a case against Trump/Trump University alleging fraud.

Judge Curiel is the judge presiding. He was born in America, but parents are from Mexico.

Judge doesn't throw out the case because the evidence suggest the case has merit.

Trump is furious because he wants the case thrown out (will cost him big if he loses).

He attacks the judge for being Mexican, which is to say, the judge can't be impartial/fair because Trump has been anti-Mexican throughout his presidential campaign.

Trump's allegations are bothersome because:

1. Attacking a federal judge simply because he doesn't rule in your favor shows a disrespect of the courts and American judicial system.

2. Citing a judge's race/ethnicity in said attack is pure racism. Has nothing to do with the case--even Trump's own lawyers agree the man's race is irrelevant.

What makes you think that what I asked was not a genuine inquiry? If it wasn't, it would not have been asked. Thanks for your response, it provides an insight into the thoughts of others. I respect your outlining of the bigger picture, however, having read a considerable amount on this aspect I believe there is more to it than you have outlined.

Trump, regardless of what people say, has the right, under the American Constitution, to free speech and is able to speak his mind, even if many do not like what he says. And, as I also asked, if one is born in America, then how can calling him a Mexican, which he is not, be racist. His heritage is Mexican, through his parents but given what Trump said, and the definition of Racist, the two do not gel, as he did not put any of them down in any way.

So to call someone a Mexican, which he is not, is racist, then what about someone who is Australian being called an Irish Mick, even if they were born in Australia but whose parents were Irish. Same train of thought can be applied or maybe there is a 3rd definition of racism that I am not aware of. The only part that people are calling him out for being racist is the use of the word Mexican, nothing else, therefore, given the rest that you have mentioned is irrelevant and has nothing to do with racism, so why is the Racist card being played?

Good point. Not even Irish Mick you bloody Aussi you! Whoops sorry I hope I didn't offend you. What would you like me to call you? Wallaby? No maybe you play soccer. A person from down under? Mmmm no that has sexual connotations. Ahh I know, Australian. Hell why didn't I think of that? Bugger I'm slower than Trump

[Linzz]

Can those calling Trump a racist for calling the judge Mexican, please explain how he is being racist. If someone was born in the USA, therefore, is an American citizen, but is called a Mexican, does not appear racist to me but I am sure someone on here will let met know why it is given some of the comments already posted.

Hmmm, is this a genuine question? Ok then, here's the answer as you may not be aware of the big picture:

Former students of Trump University bring a case against Trump/Trump University alleging fraud.

Judge Curiel is the judge presiding. He was born in America, but parents are from Mexico.

Judge doesn't throw out the case because the evidence suggest the case has merit.

Trump is furious because he wants the case thrown out (will cost him big if he loses).

He attacks the judge for being Mexican, which is to say, the judge can't be impartial/fair because Trump has been anti-Mexican throughout his presidential campaign.

Trump's allegations are bothersome because:

1. Attacking a federal judge simply because he doesn't rule in your favor shows a disrespect of the courts and American judicial system.

2. Citing a judge's race/ethnicity in said attack is pure racism. Has nothing to do with the case--even Trump's own lawyers agree the man's race is irrelevant.

What makes you think that what I asked was not a genuine inquiry? If it wasn't, it would not have been asked. Thanks for your response, it provides an insight into the thoughts of others. I respect your outlining of the bigger picture, however, having read a considerable amount on this aspect I believe there is more to it than you have outlined.

Trump, regardless of what people say, has the right, under the American Constitution, to free speech and is able to speak his mind, even if many do not like what he says. And, as I also asked, if one is born in America, then how can calling him a Mexican, which he is not, be racist. His heritage is Mexican, through his parents but given what Trump said, and the definition of Racist, the two do not gel, as he did not put any of them down in any way.

So to call someone a Mexican, which he is not, is racist, then what about someone who is Australian being called an Irish Mick, even if they were born in Australia but whose parents were Irish. Same train of thought can be applied or maybe there is a 3rd definition of racism that I am not aware of. The only part that people are calling him out for being racist is the use of the word Mexican, nothing else, therefore, given the rest that you have mentioned is irrelevant and has nothing to do with racism, so why is the Racist card being played?

The judge is an American of Mexican heritage. It's racist because Trump is suggesting that the Judge cannot be fair and impartial (i.e., do his job) simply because of his ethnicity. There is no proof that this judge has ever been biased in any case due to his ethnicity. Besides, this case has nothing to do with Mexico, but about whether Trump University is a fraud (from all the evidence that I've read, it most certainly is). I'm not sure how else to explain it to you. Essentially, what Trump is saying is that he has been racist towards Mexico and since the Judge is of Mexican heritage, then the Judge MUST be offended and therefore, not able to rule impartially.

Trump never said he has been racist towards Mexico, that's your interpretation.He said he wanted to build a wall to stop illegal entry Mexicans and drug transports.

He was aware that the judge may not take kindly to that and therefore not be impartial. I think it was a reasonable assumption of Trump to make that there might be bias and therefore a conflict of interest since the judge had already brought a case against him and that he may not get a fair hearing because of the judge's connections indirectly to Hillary through a law firm he chose to take the action through. According to another Justice of the same origins (I think I already posted) ethnicity does have a bearing on judicial outcomes.So why can't Trump express that? And he did. And BAAAM

[Berkshire]

Hmmm, is this a genuine question? Ok then, here's the answer as you may not be aware of the big picture:

Former students of Trump University bring a case against Trump/Trump University alleging fraud.

Judge Curiel is the judge presiding. He was born in America, but parents are from Mexico.

Judge doesn't throw out the case because the evidence suggest the case has merit.

Trump is furious because he wants the case thrown out (will cost him big if he loses).

He attacks the judge for being Mexican, which is to say, the judge can't be impartial/fair because Trump has been anti-Mexican throughout his presidential campaign.

Trump's allegations are bothersome because:

1. Attacking a federal judge simply because he doesn't rule in your favor shows a disrespect of the courts and American judicial system.

2. Citing a judge's race/ethnicity in said attack is pure racism. Has nothing to do with the case--even Trump's own lawyers agree the man's race is irrelevant.

What makes you think that what I asked was not a genuine inquiry? If it wasn't, it would not have been asked. Thanks for your response, it provides an insight into the thoughts of others. I respect your outlining of the bigger picture, however, having read a considerable amount on this aspect I believe there is more to it than you have outlined.

Trump, regardless of what people say, has the right, under the American Constitution, to free speech and is able to speak his mind, even if many do not like what he says. And, as I also asked, if one is born in America, then how can calling him a Mexican, which he is not, be racist. His heritage is Mexican, through his parents but given what Trump said, and the definition of Racist, the two do not gel, as he did not put any of them down in any way.

So to call someone a Mexican, which he is not, is racist, then what about someone who is Australian being called an Irish Mick, even if they were born in Australia but whose parents were Irish. Same train of thought can be applied or maybe there is a 3rd definition of racism that I am not aware of. The only part that people are calling him out for being racist is the use of the word Mexican, nothing else, therefore, given the rest that you have mentioned is irrelevant and has nothing to do with racism, so why is the Racist card being played?

The judge is an American of Mexican heritage. It's racist because Trump is suggesting that the Judge cannot be fair and impartial (i.e., do his job) simply because of his ethnicity. There is no proof that this judge has ever been biased in any case due to his ethnicity. Besides, this case has nothing to do with Mexico, but about whether Trump University is a fraud (from all the evidence that I've read, it most certainly is). I'm not sure how else to explain it to you. Essentially, what Trump is saying is that he has been racist towards Mexico and since the Judge is of Mexican heritage, then the Judge MUST be offended and therefore, not able to rule impartially.

Trump never said he has been racist towards Mexico, that's your interpretation.He said he wanted to build a wall to stop illegal entry Mexicans and drug transports.

He was aware that the judge may not take kindly to that and therefore not be impartial. I think it was a reasonable assumption of Trump to make that there might be bias and therefore a conflict of interest since the judge had already brought a case against him and that he may not get a fair hearing because of the judge's connections indirectly to Hillary through a law firm he chose to take the action through. According to another Justice of the same origins (I think I already posted) ethnicity does have a bearing on judicial outcomes.So why can't Trump express that? And he did. And BAAAM

As I have pointed out previously, if Trump has a legitimate gripe, then his own lawyers would have already made a motion to have this judge removed. But they have not and will not because there is no conflict-of-interest.