'This Is Not Normal': US Judge Denounces Trump's Attacks on Judiciary

[ok doser]

But of course, Trump attacked the judge in his fraud trial simply because he was Hispanic, falsely accusing him of being a "Mexican."

according to Forbes, barbie is lying again:

The latest flap around the #NeverBoring Donald Trump was over his demand that the judge presiding over the civil lawsuit against Trump University recuse himself from the case. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Trump said, “U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had ‘an absolute conflict’ in presiding over the litigation given that he was ‘of Mexican heritage’ and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association.”

"of Mexican heritage"

 

[Derf]

Barbarian observes:
It means that when Donald Trump announced that they are rapists and drug dealers "with a few good people", he was lying as usual.



(Barbarian checks)

"Some", not "few." Do you think that was the same sort of thing as you inserting "all" into one of my statements?

Let's look at it again (with added underlining).

Derf says: "Except he didn't attack the minorities"
Barbarian replies: "Except for calling them 'rapists and drug dealers with a few good people.'"
Would you like to explain how "the minorities" is NOT the antecedent for "them" in your reply? And would you like to explain how "the minorities" does NOT potentially mean "all minorities"?

But I will concede that, although the phrase "the minorities" was mine (and not yours), and therefore you have no case to suggest that I am misquoting you by using the word "all" with "minorities", I can see that you are confused by my typical use of the English language, and I will be willing to restate that "the minorities" could be considered to mean "any minorities" in my statement. Is that better for you?

To which I replied:
When you added "all" to it, you made it your statement. Cmon. You're better than that.

That bothered you, did it? This is the second time I'm asking, but why is it that it should bother YOU when you think I have misquoted you, but you don't think it is a problem when the antagonistic press misquotes Trump? Do you see why he might "attack" those who have first attacked him?

Yes, but as I showed you, it is not illegal to come into the United States by legal means and then overstay. Which is what more and more people are doing.

In 2012 that was settled in the Supreme Court case Arizona vs. United States. The majority opinion found that "as a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States."

Is that what we are talking about? That seems much more narrow a conversation, especially when my quoted source was about those "crossing the U.S. border with a 'coyote' or buying a fake U.S. passport, a foreign national who enters the U.S. illegally". Do you feel like your argument is teetering, and that you need to misrepresent the discussion in order to make headway at this point? Seems like it.

 

[Derf]

according to Forbes, barbie is lying again:

The latest flap around the #NeverBoring Donald Trump was over his demand that the judge presiding over the civil lawsuit against Trump University recuse himself from the case. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Trump said, “U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had ‘an absolute conflict’ in presiding over the litigation given that he was ‘of Mexican heritage’ and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association.”

"of Mexican heritage"

I listened to a speech where Trump called him a "Mexican", not just of Mexican descent.

 

[ok doser]

I listened to a speech where Trump called him a "Mexican", not just of Mexican descent.

yes, he wasn't judicious (see what I did there) in distinguishing between the two in his speech - still, it's clear that he wasn't denying his american citizenry, as many of his detractors claimed

 

[ok doser]

Worth a listen if you have the time:

 

[The Barbarian]

You seem to think "American" is the wrong term for a person born in the United States. I disagree. Trump knew entirely what he was doing when he called an American a "Mexican."

I listened to a speech where Trump called him a "Mexican", not just of Mexican descent.

And if he had said "of Mexican descent", it would still have been despicable, just not quite as despicable, to suggest that people of Mexican descent can't be impartial.

Originally posted by Derf View Post

Then you agree with me that your statement that Trump called all minorities "rapists and drug dealers with a few good people" was hyperbole?

When I pointed out that you added "all" to my statement about minorities, You responded:
"That bothered you, did it?"

I merely corrected you and suggested you were better than that.

And since you suggested that Obama's appointment of an Hispanic judge was possibly racially motivated, but did not suggest that any of his Anglo appointments was so...

 

[jgarden]

This is one of the healthiest things about Trump's presidency: where the judiciary is questioned.

The Founding Fathers created 3 distinct but co-equal branches of government for a reason - the system of checks and balances was designed to guard against one individual or branch from assuming dictatorial powers!

This President operates under the assumption that any individual or branch of government who challenges his authority must be demonized and summarily dismissed as "TRUMP HATERS!"

We see this distain for anybody with the audacity to challenge his outrageous statements/behaviour being systematically targeted by this President and his surrogates in this Forum!

 

[The Barbarian]

Every would-be dictator will always try to bring the judiciary and the press under control. Trump is no different than any of the others. He's even tried out a few laws by decree:
[h=1]Trump ‘hereby’ orders U.S. business out of China.[/h] Trump does not have the authority to “duly order” companies to leave China, according to Jennifer Hillman, a Georgetown University law professor and trade expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.

He does have power under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to prevent future transfers of funds to China, “but only if he has first made a lawful declaration that a national emergency exists,” she said.

Congress could terminate the declaration if it wishes, she said.

“Moreover, even if all this happened, it would not provide authority over all of the U.S. investments that have already been made in China,” Hillman said.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...siness-out-of-china-can-he-do-that/ar-AAGeJra

Without a free press and an independent judiciary, he could actually make things like that happen.

 

[Derf]

The Founding Fathers created 3 distinct but co-equal branches of government for a reason - the system of checks and balances was designed to guard against one individual or branch from assuming dictatorial powers!

Indeed

This President operates under the assumption that any individual or branch of government who challenges his authority must be demonized and summarily dismissed as "TRUMP HATERS!"

We see this distain for anybody with the audacity to challenge his outrageous statements/behaviour being systematically targeted by this President and his surrogates in this Forum!

I'm not sure why that has anything to do with my statement. Your point about checks and balances requires that the judiciary needs checked and balanced sometimes. And Pres Trump is not afraid to express his opinion about it, which is healthy. That was my point.

 

[Derf]

You seem to think "American" is the wrong term for a person born in the United States. I disagree. Trump knew entirely what he was doing when he called an American a "Mexican."

Once again, you extrapolate incorrectly from what I said. You're becoming tedious to converse with.

And if he had said "of Mexican descent", it would still have been despicable, just not quite as despicable, to suggest that people of Mexican descent can't be impartial.

Is anybody ever to be questioned on the basis of their descent? Are you saying nobody could ever favor their birth race/nationality or parents' race/nationality? I assume you would be glad to include white nationalists/neo-nazis in your generous depiction of human nature. It sounds like you would be willing to say "There are good people on both sides of the debate" on the issue where Trump wasn't even willing to say it.

When I pointed out that you added "all" to my statement about minorities, You responded:
"That bothered you, did it?"

I merely corrected you and suggested you were better than that.

And since you suggested that Obama's appointment of an Hispanic judge was possibly racially motivated, but did not suggest that any of his Anglo appointments was so...

No wonder Stripe calls you "Blabarian".

 

[jgarden]

I'm not sure why that has anything to do with my statement. Your point about checks and balances requires that the judiciary needs checked and balanced sometimes. And Pres Trump is not afraid to express his opinion about it, which is healthy. That was my point.

Trump challenges other branches of government for purely "self-serving" reasons, he appears oblivious to the intent of the Founding Fathers, as expressed by he Constitution.

This President is intent on pushed the boundaries of the Executive beyond its constitutional limits by adopting an adversarial approach instead of that of a statesman!

STATESMAN/STATESWOMAN - a skilled, experienced and respected leader or figure
- one versed in the principles or art of government
- a political leader known for his/her wisdom, integrity, etc
- one who is respected for making good political judgements
- a person who shows wisdom, skill and vision in conducting state affairs
- leads with moral authority and represents what is best in the country

 

[ok doser]

Trump challenges other branches of government for purely "self-serving" reasons, he appears oblivious to the intent of the Founding Fathers, as expressed by he Constitution.

This President is intent on pushed the boundaries of the Executive beyond its constitutional limits by adopting an adversarial approach instead of that of a statesman!

STATESMAN/STATESWOMAN - a skilled, experienced and respected leader or figure
- one versed in the principles or art of government
- a political leader known for his/her wisdom, integrity, etc
- one who is respected for making good political judgements
- a person who shows wisdom, skill and vision in conducting state affairs
- leads with moral authority and represents what is best in the country

you forgot a bunch of exclamation marks!

 

[The Barbarian]

not sure what that has to do with it.

It, for example, explains why cities with lots of illegal aliens are safer than other cities. It explains why Texas has fewer criminal convictions per 100,000 illegal aliens, than per 100,000 citizens.

Stuff like that.

That's like saying a homosexual can live a moral life while continuing in homosexuality.

It would be more like saying "homosexuals are less likely to rob you or assault you." I don't know if that's true for homosexuals, but the data say that it's true for illegal aliens.

If they are staying in America against the law, then they are constantly committing a crime.

No. As you saw, it's not a crime to be in the United States illegally. It's a crime to enter illegally, but more and more illegal aliens are entering legally and just overstaying.

 

[The Barbarian]

Once again, you extrapolate incorrectly from what I said. You're becoming tedious to converse with.

Is anybody ever to be questioned on the basis of their descent?

Declaring that a judge cannot be impartial because "he's a Mexican", is what Lindsey Graham called it: "Race-baiting." It's Trump's M.O. when he gets caught doing something dishonest, and gets hauled into court for it. He attacks the judge. He did something similar the judge when he was brought up on charges of housing discrimination. It didn't work that time, either; he's never been one to learn from experience.

Are you saying nobody could ever favor their birth race/nationality or parents' race/nationality?

Once again, you extrapolate incorrectly from what I said. You're becoming tedious to converse with.

Barbarian, earlier:
And since you suggested that Obama's appointment of an Hispanic judge was possibly racially motivated, but did not suggest that any of his Anglo appointments was so...

I assume you would be glad to include white nationalists/neo-nazis in your generous depiction of human nature.

It's your assumptions that are making it hard for you. How you got from my statement to yours is hard to fathom.

It sounds like you would be willing to say "There are good people on both sides of the debate" on the issue where Trump wasn't even willing to say it.

If by that, you mean I don't think you can characterize an entire ethnic group as good or bad, I suppose. But as you know, Donald Trump was speaking of Nazis, when he made such a statement.

No wonder Stripe calls you "Blabarian".

Well, you know how trolls are...

He's a reliable camp follower for me. One of the earliest members of my troll entourage.

 

[ok doser]

Once again, you extrapolate incorrectly from what I said. You're becoming tedious to converse with.

he's trolling you

every time you respond, you reward him with attention, stoke his fragile ego

notice that he's increasing his efforts today by responding a second time to your response to Username, having responded to it earlier in post 34

he's desperate for attention


btw - he's been doing the same thing to Clete in another thread

 

[Derf]

Trump challenges other branches of government for purely "self-serving" reasons, he appears oblivious to the intent of the Founding Fathers, as expressed by he Constitution.

This President is intent on pushed the boundaries of the Executive beyond its constitutional limits by adopting an adversarial approach instead of that of a statesman!

STATESMAN/STATESWOMAN - a skilled, experienced and respected leader or figure
- one versed in the principles or art of government
- a political leader known for his/her wisdom, integrity, etc
- one who is respected for making good political judgements
- a person who shows wisdom, skill and vision in conducting state affairs
- leads with moral authority and represents what is best in the country

I'm still not getting your point. What president in recent memory DIDN'T push the boundaries of the Executive, just as many judges have pushed the boundaries of the Judicial? Thus, if Trump complains, rightly sometimes and wrongly sometimes, that only makes him more vocal than other presidents.

Trotting out the definition of statesman is a non-sequitur. Why would you disparage the democrats so much?

 

[Derf]

Declaring that a judge cannot be impartial because "he's a Mexican", is what Lindsey Graham called it: "Race-baiting." It's Trump's M.O. when he gets caught doing something dishonest, and gets hauled into court for it. He attacks the judge. He did something similar the judge when he was brought up on charges of housing discrimination. It didn't work that time, either; he's never been one to learn from experience.

Suggesting that a judge of Mexican descent, whose parents immigrated recently from Mexico, when one of his campaign focuses was to enhance border controls, is not out of bounds for consideration. As I said, it was poorly conceived--Trump should not have done it, imho--but it isn't so flagrant a violation of my sensitivities as it appears to be of yours.

Barbarian, earlier:
And since you suggested that Obama's appointment of an Hispanic judge was possibly racially motivated, but did not suggest that any of his Anglo appointments was so...

I can see this isn't going anywhere. But if you'd like try to make a point with it, I'll try to respond.

It's your assumptions that are making it hard for you. How you got from my statement to yours is hard to fathom.

Now you know how it feels.

If by that, you mean I don't think you can characterize an entire ethnic group as good or bad, I suppose. But as you know, Donald Trump was speaking of Nazis, when he made such a statement.

Which is the false narrative the antagonistic press wants you to believe, but which is entirely refuted by Trump's statement.

Well, you know how trolls are...

He's a reliable camp follower for me. One of the earliest members of my troll entourage.

I didn't know trolls had entourages. Thanks for explaining that to me.

 

[Derf]

he's trolling you

every time you respond, you reward him with attention, stoke his fragile ego

notice that he's increasing his efforts today by responding a second time to your response to Username, having responded to it earlier in post 34

he's desperate for attention

Actually, everytime I respond, he shows he has less and less reason for his comments, so he resorts to repeating what I've said. Kind of a "Same to you but more of it" mentality kids have when losing an argument.

But I was surprised he so frankly admitted what you said:

Well, you know how trolls are...

He's a reliable camp follower for me. One of the earliest members of my troll entourage.

btw - he's been doing the same thing to Clete in another thread

Clete lets people get to him too easily.

 

[Wick Stick]

The Founding Fathers created 3 distinct but co-equal branches of government for a reason - the system of checks and balances was designed to guard against one individual or branch from assuming dictatorial powers!

Yes, but later the Supreme Court expanded its own powers. There currently isn't any adequate check on the power of the Court to effectively legislate from the bench, a function which was not originally intended.

This President operates under the assumption that any individual or branch of government who challenges his authority must be demonized and summarily dismissed as "TRUMP HATERS!"

We see this distain for anybody with the audacity to challenge his outrageous statements/behaviour being systematically targeted by this President and his surrogates in this Forum!

The current president has been rather effective, but he's also an embarrassment virtually every time he opens his mouth, which is constantly. I'm glad I didn't vote for him.

 

[Derf]

Yes, but later the Supreme Court expanded its own powers. There currently isn't any adequate check on the power of the Court to effectively legislate from the bench, a function which was not originally intended.

Which is an indication of the other two branches not being proper checks and balances on them. Trump, in his vulgar way, is actually attempting to put SCOTUS back in its place.