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

[ilostmypassword]

More Nonsense. The only person I could find who the right accuses of calling for murder of white people is Jose Angel Gutierrez who was the founder of La Raza Unida Party which has nothing to do with either the National Council of La Raza or La Raza Lawyers Association

I am happy to let the American people decide whether there is an association among these groups. Good luck with your efforts.

But I'll make you a deal- I promise to not oppose a La Raza Lawyer's Association judge presiding over an anti-illegal immigrant presidential candidate's trial if you promise to not oppose a white judge who belongs to the Nazi Lawyer's Association presiding over Al Sharpton's trial for tax evasion.

Deal?

Do you mean Spanish speaking Americans or all Americans no matter that they are completely ignorant of the Spanish language?

So, show me where the La Raza National Council, much less the lawyers association, has ever advocated for racist causes? Because I'm not going to have too much trouble finding examples of Nazi organization advocating for racist causes. In fact, without racism, there is no Nazism.

[hugocnx]

"In fact, without racism, there is no Nazism."

Hitler knew that very well and thus invented the Arian race.

[MajarTheLion]

I'm not sure why some people here are discounting Gingrich as an idiot or a buffoon. He is the man more responsible than anyone for balancing the US budget in the late 90's.

[boomerangutang]

I'm not sure why some people here are discounting Gingrich as an idiot or a buffoon. He is the man more responsible than anyone for balancing the US budget in the late 90's.

If you ask me, he's a two-faced forked tongued Republican manipulator.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and posts with a foreign language have been removed. Only English is allowed on this section of the forum.

[ilostmypassword]

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

I suppose if we could ignore that La Raza is a racial supremacy group, the context being its name and the founder's desire to kill white people, then yes your statement would be true.

Here's a quote from Cesar Chavez addressing the meanings of La Raza. "When La Raza means or implies racism we don't support it," he said. "But if it means our struggle, our dignity, or our cultural roots, then we're for it." In other words, just as I said, La Raza has meanings. Not just one meaning.

https://books.google.com.hk/books?id=c_VE3xUR5FEC&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=encyclopedia+of+cesar+chavez+meaning+of+La+Raza&source=bl&ots=RO8HiTAbuE&sig=Z2T-0iSXoE0lm03tDpFxxMG6obs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQydKB56LNAhUQW1IKHRq3CSsQ6AEINTAE#v=onepage&q=encyclopedia%20of%20cesar%20chavez%20meaning%20of%20La%20Raza&f=false

Edited June 12, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[MajarTheLion]

If you ask me, he's a two-faced forked tongued Republican manipulator.

Agreed, though we can certainly say the same thing about 99% of politicians.

[NovaBlue05]

If you ask me, he's a two-faced forked tongued Republican manipulator.

Agreed, though we can certainly say the same thing about 99% of politicians.

It's the job of the SOTH to be a manipulator. How else could a batshlt crazy loon like Pelosi ever get the entire party to vote for anything?

[Linzz]

The point of the anti-semite/semite example was to show that you can't use etymology to derive the meaning of words. Arabs are semites and yet they can be anti-semites, too. Because anti-semite has a developed, if illogical meaning.

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.

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.

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!

Even if race has a scientific basis, it doesn't matter that the use of "racism" to describe Trump's anti-Mexican diatribes, is illogical. That's how the word is used all over the world now. That's just the way it is. Usage defines words, not etymology.

As for your opinion about race, well, that's all it is: your opinion. This link sums up the consensus of physical anthropologists on the race question. https://www.jstor.org/stable/682043?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Thank you for that link. I read the contents and it made me again realize why there is such a gap between regular folks and elite's, specialists or scientists. The use of alot of bull moulded in high so language as to be certain simple folks like me can never understand it. That is probably (at least IMO) what makes Trump popular. Sorry for the side jump, but he speaks the language of the common people and not the secretive political correct language of the so called (left) political elite. Why can't one become a president if one speaks out what the people think?

So what I understood from the link is that races actually (better) not excist. So what's the fuss all about then.

America is awaiting a similar tsunami of migrants as in Europe, especially Germany and Sweden. Where will YOU be if the migrants openly state that they want to rape your wife and daughter(s) and that they are out to destroy you. No matter if you are political left or right, a commie or whatever. It is not racist to close your borders for these maniacs, but a matter of self defence. But, never mind, this is all a setup for the coming NWO if you want it or not. A world without democracy, but we already got used to this, right?

That's exactly how I feel about physicists.All that highfalutin' talk that dagnabbit a simple honest citizen such as myself just don't get. Lots of weird symbols and some numbers that somehow say time goes slower when you go faster and there ain't no such a thing as gravity just some kind of nonsense about space being curved. Give me good old common sense anyday.

High handed reply?

[spidermike007]

Such blatant misconceptions. La Raza is a civil rights organization. It is so like Trump to use something like this against the judge in question here. A low blow. Hispanics are in dire need of representation in the US. In my opinion the Hispanic population in the US brings so much to the table. They contribute to the US economy on so many levels, work harder than alot of Americans, are willing to do alot of work that most Americans are unwilling to do (despite what carrot hair has to say about this) and add to the cultural mix that makes the US so rich. Just stop whining, and accept that the fabric of society is evolving and changing.

Those familiar with the work of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) know that we are the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S., and that we are an American institution committed to strengthening this great nation by promoting the advancement of Latino families. Our mission is to create opportunities and open the door to the American Dream for Latino and other families.

http://www.nclr.org/about-us/who-we-are/

I love it. We're not racists! Ignore the examples of racism and just read what we say about ourselves on our web site!

Even their name identifies them as racial supremacists. If they are "the race", where does that position other races? This is not rocket science.

Your ability to interpret spanish correctly, is about on par with Jimmy Grahams ability to interpret the bible. The race does not denote superiority, like the "Chosen people" does in Judaism. It denotes a race of hispanic people attempting to claim some of their rights and honors, that they deserve, as law abiding, hard working, tax paying workers in the US. They are bringing alot to the table, despite what "corn hair don" claims.

[Linzz]

The heavy majority of Federal Judges in the U.S. are Liberal - even Leftist ...

Probably because they're sage. They've gotten a bit compassionate as they get older, and gain positions of more authority. I applaud the judge who came from poverty and rose to prominence. Well done, sir!

Perhaps you like a hard-right conservative judge like Judge Hoffman who presided over the Chicago Seven (google it).

He slapped multiple 'contempt of court' on many people in that trial. Later, appeals courts threw out all of the contempt of court charges as frivolous.

Re; The Divider: If the judge in Trump's case was bosom buddies with Trump (as many NJ judges are, because Trump fast-tracked them to promotions), then Trump would love the guy. He'd be lavishing praise on him. Taking him and his wife out to dinner at expensive restaurants - all the sorts of things a mafia wannabe does.

Yes Boomer no problem with a judge from relatively disadvantage rising to prominence, but the point is, is he suitable?

Excuse me if I quote myself from a previous thread:

"Forget race or ethnicity for a minute.

If a judge is part of a body who awards scholarships to immigrants of which some openly admitted to being undocumented (illegal) immigrants and Trump is recommending sending illegals home then there is a conflict of interest in as much that the judge cannot therefore claim impartiality towards Trump.

If a judge is a member of an organisation that recommends and openly advertises that people should avoid doing business with any of Trump's companies, the judge cannot claim impartiality in judging the man Trump on one of his businesses because the judge already is in conflict with him.

If a judge chooses a law firm to take legal proceedings against a man when that firm is politically biased against him already because that man is an integral component of opposition to their own bias, then there is a conflict of interest.

Simply put there are:

Conflicts of interest around illegal immigrants,

Conflict of interest in concert with open opposition to Trump's businesses

Conflict of interest involving political partiality

Quite simply a juror would be rejected for these reasons.

so the judge should stand down but not because of his heritage"

Why has not Trump's lawyers not protested on this basis I hear Berkshire ask? Actually I still have no idea.

[ilostmypassword]

The heavy majority of Federal Judges in the U.S. are Liberal - even Leftist ...

Probably because they're sage. They've gotten a bit compassionate as they get older, and gain positions of more authority. I applaud the judge who came from poverty and rose to prominence. Well done, sir!

Perhaps you like a hard-right conservative judge like Judge Hoffman who presided over the Chicago Seven (google it).

He slapped multiple 'contempt of court' on many people in that trial. Later, appeals courts threw out all of the contempt of court charges as frivolous.

Re; The Divider: If the judge in Trump's case was bosom buddies with Trump (as many NJ judges are, because Trump fast-tracked them to promotions), then Trump would love the guy. He'd be lavishing praise on him. Taking him and his wife out to dinner at expensive restaurants - all the sorts of things a mafia wannabe does.

Yes Boomer no problem with a judge from relatively disadvantage rising to prominence, but the point is, is he suitable?

Excuse me if I quote myself from a previous thread:

"Forget race or ethnicity for a minute.

If a judge is part of a body who awards scholarships to immigrants of which some openly admitted to being undocumented (illegal) immigrants and Trump is recommending sending illegals home then there is a conflict of interest in as much that the judge cannot therefore claim impartiality towards Trump.

If a judge is a member of an organisation that recommends and openly advertises that people should avoid doing business with any of Trump's companies, the judge cannot claim impartiality in judging the man Trump on one of his businesses because the judge already is in conflict with him.

If a judge chooses a law firm to take legal proceedings against a man when that firm is politically biased against him already because that man is an integral component of opposition to their own bias, then there is a conflict of interest.

Simply put there are:

Conflicts of interest around illegal immigrants,

Conflict of interest in concert with open opposition to Trump's businesses

Conflict of interest involving political partiality

Quite simply a juror would be rejected for these reasons.

so the judge should stand down but not because of his heritage"

Why has not Trump's lawyers not protested on this basis I hear Berkshire ask? Actually I still have no idea.

It's you who needs an English lesson. Look up the difference between jurist and juror.

[Linzz]

Did I say anyone needed an English lesson? I don't recall. Maybe you do. You look it up smartass. A juror is one who serves on a jury. I did mean juror as I said or just for you juryman or jurywoman, is that better? Sometimes they get rejected for one reason or another pre trial. Don't think you understood did you?

Edited June 13, 2016 by Linzz

[NovaBlue05]

This week, it looks like the media will be forced to stop beating this dead horse

[ilostmypassword]

Did I say anyone needed an English lesson? I don't recall. Maybe you do. You look it up smartass. A juror is one who serves on a jury. I did mean juror as I said or just for you juryman or jurywoman, is that better? Sometimes they get rejected for one reason or another pre trial. Don't think you understood did you?

What you don't seem to undersatnd is that a judge is a jurist, not a juror. His or her expertise is supposed to trump their political beliefs. And that, by the way, is the official policy of the Federal Court System. But if that's not the case, then consider that currently at least 2 Supreme Court Justices are members of the Federalist Society which is a very right wing group with a radical right wing agenda. Do you think that these 2 judges should disqualify themselves from ruling on issues which the Federalist Society has taken a strong stand on?

Edited June 13, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[Linzz]

Did I say anyone needed an English lesson? I don't recall. Maybe you do. You look it up smartass. A juror is one who serves on a jury. I did mean juror as I said or just for you juryman or jurywoman, is that better? Sometimes they get rejected for one reason or another pre trial. Don't think you understood did you?

What you don't seem to undersatnd is that a judge is a jurist, not a juror. His or her expertise is supposed to trump their political beliefs. And that, by the way, is the official policy of the Federal Court System. But if that's not the case, then consider that currently at least 2 Supreme Court Justices are members of the Federalist Society which is a very right wing group with a radical right wing agenda. Do you think that these 2 judges should disqualify themselves from ruling on issues which the Federalist Society has taken a strong stand on?

What you don't seem to understand is that I know a judge is a jurist so quit your condescension. You need to read my post again. Where did I say a judge is a juror? I'm talking about jurors being rejected from a jury pre trial not meeting criteria that surely a judge should meet. I've said it twice now. Still not clear then I can't help you.

Why do think that judges recuse themselves? They do it if there is any question of an appearance of bias, conflict of interest or impropriety to a litigant which is the standard by which judges can recuse themselves under the Judicial Code of Conduct.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455

[Publicus]

Trump is a whinger.

A rightwhinger.

Trump has so many complaints against so many people and groups of people, and so many antagonisms against so many things people say or do that the only way to solve everything is by trusting Trump HimSelf the Strongman, which means for Trump to gain power as the Uniquely American Mussolini that he is.

It is all or nothing with the far out extreme rightists.

Gingrich himself had to quit as Speaker of the House (and the congress maximus) because he scared so many Americans. After all, most Republicans consider that Gingrich is actually an intellectual.

Republicans also make the gross error to believe that Trump if he achieves state power will continue to pretend his own belief in democracy and in an independent judiciary. Or a free press, free speech, protections against search and seizure, testimony against one's self....y'know, the Bill of Rights and the whole of the Constitution itself.

Let Benito do it.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Publicus

[Si Thea01]

The heavy majority of Federal Judges in the U.S. are Liberal - even Leftist ...

Probably because they're sage. They've gotten a bit compassionate as they get older, and gain positions of more authority. I applaud the judge who came from poverty and rose to prominence. Well done, sir!

Perhaps you like a hard-right conservative judge like Judge Hoffman who presided over the Chicago Seven (google it).

He slapped multiple 'contempt of court' on many people in that trial. Later, appeals courts threw out all of the contempt of court charges as frivolous.

Re; The Divider: If the judge in Trump's case was bosom buddies with Trump (as many NJ judges are, because Trump fast-tracked them to promotions), then Trump would love the guy. He'd be lavishing praise on him. Taking him and his wife out to dinner at expensive restaurants - all the sorts of things a mafia wannabe does.

Yes Boomer no problem with a judge from relatively disadvantage rising to prominence, but the point is, is he suitable?

Excuse me if I quote myself from a previous thread:

"Forget race or ethnicity for a minute.

If a judge is part of a body who awards scholarships to immigrants of which some openly admitted to being undocumented (illegal) immigrants and Trump is recommending sending illegals home then there is a conflict of interest in as much that the judge cannot therefore claim impartiality towards Trump.

If a judge is a member of an organisation that recommends and openly advertises that people should avoid doing business with any of Trump's companies, the judge cannot claim impartiality in judging the man Trump on one of his businesses because the judge already is in conflict with him.

If a judge chooses a law firm to take legal proceedings against a man when that firm is politically biased against him already because that man is an integral component of opposition to their own bias, then there is a conflict of interest.

Simply put there are:

Conflicts of interest around illegal immigrants,

Conflict of interest in concert with open opposition to Trump's businesses

Conflict of interest involving political partiality

Quite simply a juror would be rejected for these reasons.

so the judge should stand down but not because of his heritage"

Why has not Trump's lawyers not protested on this basis I hear Berkshire ask? Actually I still have no idea.

It's you who needs an English lesson. Look up the difference between jurist and juror.

I'd say that you need a lesson in the legal definition of the words, "Juror" and "Jurist, and then a English lesson in how to comprehend the correct usage of the words. Just to help you understand and not look foolish, here they are.

A juror is someone who serves as a jury member in a trial. A jurist is a professional who studies, develops, applies, or otherwise deals with the law. Now where is there an incorrect usage of the word. As you should be able to clearly see, there are two references, one relating to a juror, the other to the judge or jurist. I hope this helps you understand.

[hugocnx]

ilostmyglasses

[Linzz]

[MajarTheLion]

Your ability to interpret spanish correctly, is about on par with Jimmy Grahams ability to interpret the bible. The race does not denote superiority, like the "Chosen people" does in Judaism. It denotes a race of hispanic people attempting to claim some of their rights and honors, that they deserve, as law abiding, hard working, tax paying workers in the US. They are bringing alot to the table, despite what "corn hair don" claims.

Yes of course people coming here illegally, committing identity fraud, working for cash tax-free, exporting tens of billions of dollars- these are wonderful things and brings much to the table.

I am fine with immigration. What is so evil about asking that people comply with the law, wait in line like everyone else, come here legally in numbers WE decide as a matter of good policy based on our labor and skills needs?

Pretty racist stuff, yes?

[spidermike007]

Your ability to interpret spanish correctly, is about on par with Jimmy Grahams ability to interpret the bible. The race does not denote superiority, like the "Chosen people" does in Judaism. It denotes a race of hispanic people attempting to claim some of their rights and honors, that they deserve, as law abiding, hard working, tax paying workers in the US. They are bringing alot to the table, despite what "corn hair don" claims.

Yes of course people coming here illegally, committing identity fraud, working for cash tax-free, exporting tens of billions of dollars- these are wonderful things and brings much to the table.

I am fine with immigration. What is so evil about asking that people comply with the law, wait in line like everyone else, come here legally in numbers WE decide as a matter of good policy based on our labor and skills needs?

Pretty racist stuff, yes?

Your arguments would hold water, if our immigration system was not completely broken. There is a complete absence of "good policy" within our current immigration system. Nuclear physicists from India cannot get visas to come here and work. The best and the brightest from all over the world are being turned away, daily. They are going elsewhere, and who's loss is that? Prior to our system becoming completely broken, we used to attract the best from all over the world. Now, due to terrible policy, we are fast becoming a nation with the highest concentration of landscapers, dishwashers, and relatively unskilled minimum wage workers in the world.

The aspect of this that Corn hair does not want to address, and neither do his devotees, is that people come to the US illegally, because they cannot come legally. It is very difficult for anyone from the third world without alot of cash to enter the US these days, legally. So, where does that leave the massive work force that is required to drive the American economy?

No matter how you look at it, without the Hispanic work force, all US wineries would close, nearly all agricultural production would grind to a halt, very little landscaping or dishwashing would take place in the nations restaurants or homes, and every fast food outlet in the country would have to close tomorrow. Is that what you want?

A small percentage of illegal workers commit identity fraud. And most pay taxes, and never collect. Many think tanks and economic studies have concluded that this work force is a net benefit to the US economy. That they actually pay more than they take in benefits. Can you possibly wrap your mind around that possibility?

That is just another aspect of this immigration debate, that corn hair will not discuss.