Are all Trump supporters racists?

[logger]

Not without a demonstration of this claim by you. You have no idea what the far-left is. I suggest you try to stop labeling people around you, and instead accept their own description of their beliefs instead of foisting your own opinions onto them.

If I allowed you to give your own description you'd continue to live in denial. Liberals hate to be called liberal and conservatives love being called conservative, funny that.

Now you're just in denial.

Go ahead and prove it, I dare you.

Funny how the left hates to be labeled but they love to label others with the most hateful, intolerant despicable names they can come up with. With zero proof!

 

[bruto]

If I allowed you to give your own description you'd continue to live in denial. Liberals hate to be called liberal and conservatives love being called conservative, funny that.

Go ahead and prove it, I dare you.

Funny how the left hates to be labeled but they love to label others with the most hateful, intolerant despicable names they can come up with. With zero proof!

I am liberal and happy to be labeled such, the more so as what used to be conservative is now probably a dangerous liberal by neoconservative standards. I'm certainly way further to the left than you are, and while I don't think I'm terribly, dangerously so, if you did not think I was I'd be convinced I'm doing something wrong.

 

[WilliamSeger]

If I allowed you to give your own description you'd continue to live in denial. Liberals hate to be called liberal and conservatives love being called conservative, funny that.

Reactionaries love being called conservatives, too; I guess it makes them feel better.

I certainly don't hate being called a liberal or a progressive, since I consider myself to be both. Where did you get that idiotic idea from -- Rush?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

In a normal world I'd be a liberal; in a world with left, center and right-wing parties, I would try to stand for free speech for all and personal freedoms.

However, the political pendulum has swung so far to the right that no party can even be considered centrist, let alone left by and standards of history.

Simply as an attempt at balance, I am currently more socialist than liberal.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

You are saying here that judges whose political views are not in line with Trump's should recuse themselves from a case involving Trump.

Even though in this instance the case does not involve any of Trump's policies, only the actions of a company he owned.

That might eliminate a lot of judges.

Would you extend this same sort of protection to situations where the judge was a conservative and the defendant a liberal?

Regardless of what the case was about?

I'm saying that if there is a conflict of interest and or a lack of impartiality, the Judge should recuse themselves from a case. Doesn't matter if it's Trump or Clinton.

We're not talking about hypotheticals, we are talking about the facts concerning Trump's claim that the Judge was being unfair to him.

In the Justice system, even the appearance of impropriety can be grounds for retrial or even dismissal.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Insert laughing dog - as many as you choose. You just repeat lies from the right wing blogosphere at random.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...wrongly-casts-california-lawyers-group-stron/


"The group is often confused with the National Council of La Raza, an advocacy group often criticized by conservatives. Aside from a similarity in their names, the only tie we found was a link to the National Council of La Raza on the lawyers association website. But that list of links also includes the National Latino Police Officers Association and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce."

Even within the Left's PC explanation we find the truth.

Let's look at it from another side. Let's say a White judge was accused of making unfair decisions for a minority's case. That White judge belongs to a local club that has a website. On their website there is a link to the KKK.

Would you see a conflict then?

Chris B.

 

[quadraginta]

I'm saying that if there is a conflict of interest and or a lack of impartiality, the Judge should recuse themselves from a case. Doesn't matter if it's Trump or Clinton.

What, in this case, was the conflict of interest?

We're not talking about hypotheticals, we are talking about the facts concerning Trump's claim that the Judge was being unfair to him.

Please provide these "facts".

In the Justice system, even the appearance of impropriety can be grounds for retrial or even dismissal.
Chris B.

It needs to be at least a plausible appearance, not merely an unfounded claim by a self-interested party that such exists.

How many cases do you think could be tried if the all that was needed was for the defendant to claim that the judge didn't like them?

I have a feeling that, in general, judges don't like the majority of the defendants that appear before them.

After all, most of them are already convicted criminals, and the evidence is usually iron-clad for whatever their latest charges are.

Every case isn't like Perry Mason.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Let's look at it from another side. Let's say a White judge was accused of making unfair decisions for a minority's case. That White judge belongs to a local club that has a website. On their website there is a link to the KKK.

Would you see a conflict then?

Chris B.

No.

It would need a little (a lot) more solid connection than that.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...wrongly-casts-california-lawyers-group-stron/


"The group is often confused with the National Council of La Raza, an advocacy group often criticized by conservatives. Aside from a similarity in their names, the only tie we found was a link to the National Council of La Raza on the lawyers association website. But that list of links also includes the National Latino Police Officers Association and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce."

Even within the Left's PC explanation we find the truth.

Let's look at it from another side. Let's say a White judge was accused of making unfair decisions for a minority's case. That White judge belongs to a local club that has a website. On their website there is a link to the KKK.

Would you see a conflict then?

Chris B.

I would need you to stop equating NCLR with the KKK because it's a farcical comparison.

There's nothing to be ashamed about by having a link to NCLR on one's website.

So the counter would be: would you allow a black defendant to object to a white judge who is a member of a group of legal professionals and scholars who have a link on their website to another institution that advocates for public policies the defendant disagrees with?

ETA: A good example would be a judge who is a member of a group with a website that has a link to another website for a group of law enforcement professionals who advocate for stop-and-frisk or other 'broken windows' policing strategies, etc.

 

[quadraginta]

I would need you to stop equating NCLR with the KKK because it's a farcical comparison.

There's nothing to be ashamed about by having a link to NCLR on one's website.

So the counter would be: would you allow a black defendant to object to a white judge who is a member of a group of legal professionals and scholars who have a link on their website to another institution that advocates for public policies the defendant disagrees with?

ETA: A good example would be a judge who is a member of a group with a website that has a link to another website for a group of law enforcement professionals who advocate for stop-and-frisk or other 'broken windows' policing strategies, etc.

He's already said that he believes any judge whose political views are inconsistent with the defendant's is in conflict and should be recused.

There isn't any need to go into more detail. He has laid it out at its most fundamental.

Judges who are Democrats or liberals shouldn't preside over the trials of Republicans or conservatives. Judges who are Republicans or conservatives shouldn't preside over the trials of liberals or Democrats.

I guess judges need to take a loyalty test (and oath?) to make sure that their political views are in line with a defendant's before any trial can proceed.

 

[bruto]

He's already said that he believes any judge whose political views are inconsistent with the defendant's is in conflict and should be recused.

There isn't any need to go into more detail. He has laid it out at its most fundamental.

Judges who are Democrats or liberals shouldn't preside over the trials of Republicans or conservatives. Judges who are Republicans or conservatives shouldn't preside over the trials of liberals or Democrats.

I guess judges need to take a loyalty test (and oath?) to make sure that their political views are in line with a defendant's before any trial can proceed.

Oh yes, I think we should disenfranchise everyone who is not with the prevailing rulers, either in politics, religion or race. That guarantees a smooth administration, and lasting peace. It's always worked well in so many places.

 

[Foolmewunz]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...wrongly-casts-california-lawyers-group-stron/


"The group is often confused with the National Council of La Raza, an advocacy group often criticized by conservatives. Aside from a similarity in their names, the only tie we found was a link to the National Council of La Raza on the lawyers association website. But that list of links also includes the National Latino Police Officers Association and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce."

Even within the Left's PC explanation we find the truth.

Let's look at it from another side. Let's say a White judge was accused of making unfair decisions for a minority's case. That White judge belongs to a local club that has a website. On their website there is a link to the KKK.

Would you see a conflict then?

Chris B.

I think you mis-spelled, "Yeah, I foolishly repeated some right wing non-news." They are not the same and the link is one of about fifty to all sorts of Latino advocacy groups. And the NCLR is far from a dangerous group of extremists, besides.

Just own up to your mistakes. Mom will forgive you and you can have a cookie. Admit it.... you fell for anti-news and repeated it. This happens to people who get all their news from a confirmation-bias-bubble. All that you have learned about NCLR and the San Diego lawyers' group, you've learned by being corrected here. You knew nothing of the topic but were repeating blather from the right wing blogosphere.

 

[Foolmewunz]

He's already said that he believes any judge whose political views are inconsistent with the defendant's is in conflict and should be recused.

There isn't any need to go into more detail. He has laid it out at its most fundamental.

Judges who are Democrats or liberals shouldn't preside over the trials of Republicans or conservatives. Judges who are Republicans or conservatives shouldn't preside over the trials of liberals or Democrats.

I guess judges need to take a loyalty test (and oath?) to make sure that their political views are in line with a defendant's before any trial can proceed.

This is a throwback to the fake trials in the South during the era before the DoJ stepped in. When they had Klan members on trial and got the jury pool of their "peers" I always expected them to have four salamanders, six toads and a couple of garden slugs.

'Cuz that's the flip side of all this "well would you want someone who doesn't agree with your politics on the bench" crap. If judges who don't agree with your politics are recused and lawyers can challenge any juror who is similarly situated, you wind up with a judge and jury of people who are biased towards the orange turdblossom.

 

[theprestige]

I believe Trump to be the ultimate Racist since (according to his biographers) he considers himself and his lineage to be of superior genetic stock than basically anyone else, regardless of race and color.

The ultimate racist has no regard for race or color, you say? How does that work?

 

[bruto]

The ultimate racist has no regard for race or color, you say? How does that work?

True enough. He might be a racist too, but his vaunting ego does not make him that.

 

[theprestige]

True enough. He might be a racist too, but his vaunting ego does not make him that.

I'm not sure how he can be racist if he has no regard for race or color.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The ultimate racist has no regard for race or color, you say? How does that work?

You can call him a Supremacist if you want, or a self-declared Ubermensch.

It's still racism, since he considers himself to be by birth better than anyone else.

 

[Belz...]

If I allowed you to give your own description you'd continue to live in denial. Liberals hate to be called liberal and conservatives love being called conservative, funny that.

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said far-left, not "liberal".

Stop playing with words. Either demonstrate what you said or stop making accusations.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The "LaRaza" nonsense is just that, nonsense. Trump did not mention the group at all in his attack on the judge. He attacked the judge's "Mexican heritage" which is a racist attack.

 

[logger]

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said far-left, not "liberal".

Stop playing with words. Either demonstrate what you said or stop making accusations.

You've demonstrated it many times, I'm just pointing it out.