Saturday morning links

"Vote for the crook. It's important."

Donald Trump doubles down: American judge can’t judge me because “He’s a Mexican." {The judge is from Indiana.}

#1 Zachriel on 2016-08-27 09:45 (Reply)

Vox????...reeally Zack? Can you "vox'splain" what your point is supposed to be?

#1.1 Dale on 2016-08-27 10:11 (Reply)

"Vote for the crook. It's important." is a famous, unofficial slogan from the Eddie Edwards 1991 campaign for governor of Louisiana.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Edwards#Second_comeback:_Edwards_vs._Duke.2C_1991

#1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-27 10:24 (Reply)

I find it revealing that you want to vote for somebody you describe as a crook. Revealing, but not surprising.

#1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-08-27 11:44 (Reply)

mudbug: I find it revealing that you want to vote for somebody you describe as a crook.

alt-mb: I find it revealing that you want to vote for somebody you describe as a crook racist. Revealing, but not surprising.

#1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-27 11:50 (Reply)

mudbug did not describe Trump as a racist; the crook did.

#1.1.1.1.1.1 Sam L. on 2016-08-27 14:09 (Reply)

Paul Ryan, Republican Speaker of the House, said of Trump's comments on the Indiana judge, “Claiming a person can’t do the job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment. I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It’s absolutely unacceptable.”

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-27 16:25 (Reply)

When did Trump say that?

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-08-27 16:39 (Reply)

June 2, 2016

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-27 16:49 (Reply)

Maybe you can be more specific. I didn't see where he said that the judge couldn't do his job because of his race. He said:

QUOTE:

He is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine. But I say he's got bias...

The club or society Trump alluded to is La Raza Lawyer's Assn. Whether this is associated with the National Council of La Raza (which has supported things like in-state tuition for illegal aliens and promoted pro illegal immigration causes) or not, it is reasonable to assume that it does. Given the National Council of La Raza's pro illegal immigration stance and Trump's pledge to curtail illegal immigration, it's not hard to consider that someone affiliated with that group would be biased against him. There's nothing racist about that.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-08-27 17:16 (Reply)

mudbug: Maybe you can be more specific.

He said so several times, such as this exchange:

Dickerson: Let me ask you about, what does the Mexican heritage of the judge in the Trump University case have to do with anything?

Trump: I think it has a lot to do with it.

mudbug: The club or society Trump alluded to is La Raza Lawyer's Assn. Whether this is associated with the National Council of La Raza (which has supported things like in-state tuition for illegal aliens and promoted pro illegal immigration causes) or not, it is reasonable to assume that it does.

Very truthy. If it feels true, then you may as well believe it.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-28 09:30 (Reply)

Just to be clear, we'll leave the voting to the Americans. Nor is voting for the crook mean you necessarily want to vote for the crook, but in the U.S. two-party system that may be the best choice. Nor do we actually accept the premise. We provided it for those who do accept the premise, and are faced with what they see as a choice between evils.

#1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2016-08-27 11:52 (Reply)

Another interesting fact - the Zs are not (necessarily Americans)! I've always wondered who pays all you Zs to do this? Soros per chance?

And don't give this crap about how our two party system works. In the first place, there are four parties running this time. In the Second, don't waste your time telling me that if Walker, Fiorina, Carson, Jindal, or Pall had gotten the nomination that any of you would consider voting for them.

#1.1.1.1.2.1 mudbug on 2016-08-27 15:47 (Reply)

mudbug: And don't give this crap about how our two party system works. In the first place, there are four parties running this time.

And in most states you can write in a candidate. However, only the two major parties are likely to receive a significant number of electoral votes.

#1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-27 16:26 (Reply)

The fact remains that the Democratic party nominated someone you describe as a "crook" and if you were Americans, you'd be happy voting for her regardless of her opposition.

#1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-08-27 16:41 (Reply)

mudbug: The fact remains that the Democratic party nominated someone you describe as a "crook" and if you were Americans, you'd be happy voting for her regardless of her opposition.

We quoted a famous campaign slogan, and drew a parallel.

Voting for the crook doesn't mean you necessarily want to vote for the crook, but in the U.S. two-party system that may be the best choice. Nor did we accept the premise. We provided it for those who do accept the premise, and are faced with what they see as a choice between evils.

#1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-27 16:52 (Reply)

If you don't accept the premise that she is a crook, you shouldn't have called her a crook.

#1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-08-27 17:18 (Reply)

We didn't.

#1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-28 09:34 (Reply)

BTW - a working definition of 'crook' for me is a politician who uses her political office for person (financial) gain. I think that describes Hillary pretty well.

#1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2 mudbug on 2016-08-27 17:21 (Reply)

mudbug: BTW - a working definition of 'crook' for me is a politician who uses her political office for person (financial) gain. I think that describes Hillary pretty well.

It's pretty clear she didn't use her political office for personal financial gain, unless someone out of office getting paid to make political speeches to be a crook. If so, you should probably propose a new law to that effect. Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and Clinton, all charged for speeches when out of office.

#1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-28 09:33 (Reply)

Nope. ZBot machinery isn't programmed that way. It's first protocol is diversion.

#1.1.2 Ten on 2016-08-27 11:16 (Reply)

I'm wondering, is the Zach Borg, part of the 29% that think Hillary is honest? It's a simple yes or no. No need to give me links, quotes and paragraphs.

#1.2 B Hammer on 2016-08-27 11:43 (Reply)

B Hammer: I'm wondering, is the Zach Borg, part of the 29% that think Hillary is honest?

As honest as most politicians. More honest than some.

#1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-27 11:48 (Reply)

Vox..Politifact....got anything from Media Matters or Open Society? Her history (oops..is "history" a word of the Patriarchy?) and actions are all that is needed to plainly see she is one of the most corrupt politicians this side of Mexcio.
Just my opinion...others may feel differenty.

#1.2.1.1 Dale on 2016-08-27 12:02 (Reply)

Dale: she is one of the most corrupt politicians this side of Mexcio.

Politifact provides hundreds of specifics.

#1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-27 12:09 (Reply)

Salon and HuffPo are usually full of good stuff too. Judging by the spam mail I get from my lefty co-workers all day. I would like to say my company has a rule against people sending political propaganda to each other, but sadly no, although I have set up a rule in my mailbox to send all emails from one of these guys to junk mail.

#1.2.1.1.2 Jim on 2016-08-27 13:33 (Reply)

Hm, well, the judge was born of two Mexican parents, so, his heritage is Mexican. And you cannot deny that judges do bring with them their prejudices and experiences to the bench as we were told that Supreme Court nominee (at the time), Sonia Sotomayor, was a 'wise latina.' The very essence of pointing out that her background shades her decision making.

We are also told repeatedly that white judges judge blacks more harshly. Guess it's not fair to point out the same in Trump's situation?

Nothing racist about it at all. He could've been Chinese, Indian or African, and mentioning his heritage would not be racist. Just factual.

In the end, it is far, far worse what Clinton has done. We ALL know she broke the law and should be prosecuted for it. You can try to spin it away, but most normal Americans are not as interested in spin and are surprised she is getting off the hook.

The one thing Democrats are clinging to is their statement that 'all politicians lie.' As if this should wipe her guilt away. To me, there is a BIG difference when someone lies about criminal activity, rather than policies they hope to employ and then can't manage to get it done as they promised.

#1.3 MissT on 2016-08-28 17:55 (Reply)

MissT: Hm, well, the judge was born of two Mexican parents, so, his heritage is Mexican. And you cannot deny that judges do bring with them their prejudices and experiences to the bench as we were told that Supreme Court nominee (at the time), Sonia Sotomayor, was a 'wise latina.'

Everyone brings their experiences. Sotomayor said nothing about bringing prejudices.

MissT: Nothing racist about it at all. He could've been Chinese, Indian or African, and mentioning his heritage would not be racist.

Trump didn't just "mention" the judge's heritage, but said his heritage made him incapable of rendering a fair decision.

MissT: We ALL know she broke the law and should be prosecuted for it.

No. We don't ALL know that. Indeed, the FBI apparently doesn't know that, and they have the most detailed knowledge of the facts and law surrounding Clinton's actions.

#1.3.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-29 09:43 (Reply)

BleachBit. I haven't use it, but it's purported to be an all around PC cleaner-upper, much like CCleaner, which has a mixed reputation at best. If all you want to do is wipe free space after you've methodically deleted unwanted files, Eraser or something comparable has a much better reputation. If you don't know enough to find and methodically delete unwanted files, you probably shouldn't be fooling around with these things. They can cause more harm than good in the wrong hands.

#2 BillH on 2016-08-27 09:57 (Reply)

If all you're deleting are things related to yoga, a wedding or recipes, why bother with either?

#2.1 Dale on 2016-08-27 10:02 (Reply)

Re: Federal control of Western land.

I have mixed feelings. One side of me says that the governments; federal, state and local shouldn't "own" anything. They build huge buildings to house hundreds of bureaucrats who are over payed and under worked and their property is exempt from taxes. It is all pure waste of money. Let them rent from someone who pays taxes and hires workers.

On the other side, the Western lands in question ARE OWNED by the federal government. They didn't 'take' them from the states or from Bundy. And that means they are 'owned' by every American. You can drive there and camp on BLM lands and hike and explore, etc. If they were privately owned you could not. Give the land to the states, they say. Well as far as the government 'owning' the lands that is a distinction without a difference. Besides many of the states are more corrupt than the federal government is. Bundy doesn't own the lands he 'rented' from the federal government but decided not to pay for. Neither do the activists. They had no business taking over that Malheur Refuge in Oregon and it may go down in history as the stupidest thing anyone has ever done. The Bundy's had a good life, a good thing going for them and they pissed it away on some vague belief that they were entitled. Stupid, stupid, stupid. In a few weeks I will visit the Malheur Refuge, I do it every fall, best time to go. I'm glad the Bundy's and his gang of fools is safely in jail.

#3 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-08-27 10:25 (Reply)

Scores of us have now taken copious notes, Windy, and recorded them forever in our personal journals.

#3.1 Ten on 2016-08-27 11:19 (Reply)

And they were CLOSED by our current administration, in a fit of pique.

#3.2 Sam L. on 2016-08-27 14:11 (Reply)

Having a checks-and-balances feature would prevent politically-motivated arbitrary "it's a national monument now" situations like Bill Clinton did back in the '90s to prevent energy exploration in the American west.

That said, I really have some trouble turning many federal lands over to the states, mainly because improper exploitation or breaking-up of those lands becomes easier and more likely, since local pols are in better positions for "persuasion" regarding use or ownership of such lands.

But I really do think that a checks-and-balances feature as I mentioned above is needed.

#3.3 OldFert on 2016-08-27 14:50 (Reply)

I agree. The no coal mining was a gift to green voters who always vote Democrat. There certainly are pristine lands/parks where mining or certain harmful commercial uses should be prevented. But most of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument does not meet that criteria and mining and other uses would make sense. There are things worth saving and multiple use management makes good sense. I think of these as complementary rather than opposing options. Unfortunately the National Park Service and the Dept of the Interior are in a far left binge right now.

#3.3.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-08-27 15:17 (Reply)

Re: I may be a crook, but he is a racist

Exactly who is the raciest?

Bill Clinton's mentor was segregationist William Fulbright.
He belonged to a whites only country club in Arkansas.
When Obama was running in 2008, he told Ted Kennedy that a few years ago, Obama would have been serving them coffee.
Hillary Clinton was known to use the term "F*ing Jew bastard."
Hillary spoke highly of Robert Byrd (once a KKK leader who as recently as 2009 used the term "white n*gger").

Trump insisted on allowing Jews and blacks to join his country club in the '90s.

#4 mudbug on 2016-08-27 12:09 (Reply)

Part of ZBot machinery is programmed to pounce on subjective facts, reframe them as opinion, and insist that only leftist opinion over on the other side of the room counts. This ZBot refers to in seemingly objective terms such as "we referred to", "the subject", "we were only", "facts", and other apparently unimpeachable linguistic labels and handles, such as the prohibition of an opponents "handwaving" aimed at lending ZBot machinery an inferred credibility it doesn't actually possess.

However, taking the ZBot machinery-bait in any small part constitutes codependency: any answer along the lines of the machinery's diversionary protocol leads nowhere, because being machinery, it's not destined for principle, integrity, or enlightenment. It's not meant to create light and reason but to conceal it. This too is part of the programming.

Think of it as the natural outcome - in the present case - of being led to discuss racism by a seemingly objective truth that it's a leading cause of moral failure, social discord, and general decline of humanity even though it's a neo-morality, a progressive puritanism, a badgering, projecting preaching that starves real ethics and principles for air and eventually out of existence.

Normal people call this phenomenon completely missing the point. Not so with machinery and programs.

This in mind, let's see how mudbug does. Remember, having once descended into the machinery's intended rabbit hole you always find it difficult to restore normal order. Yup, also part of the hardware.

#4.1 Ten on 2016-08-27 12:57 (Reply)

Ten: Part of ZBot machinery is programmed to pounce on subjective facts

Quite the contrary. We build our positions on a foundation of objective and verifiable facts.

#4.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-27 13:23 (Reply)

Case in point, people. Here we see the programming hitting a hard limit: Simply assert unfailing factuality whenever confronted with said limit, even as I have done. Simple.

In other words, there can be no question if the library of acceptable "facts" only constitutes talking points encoded by the programmer. It actually has kind of a nice continuity to it. If the ZBot program includes it, then it exists, but if ZBot programming does not include it, then it does not exist.

QED. This is the kernel assumption the machinery wishes to impart upon its green CRT display. That it is infallible by existing. One is tempted to call this a God Program.

Note the inability to so much as comment, in the present context or another if you'll care to recall, on how this remarkable infallibility presents itself - surely it'd be entirely self-evident, right? - much less what it would draw upon, or certainly how ZBot machinery, presented in the guise of a human being, could credibly lay claim to such a state of perfect perspective, assessment, and recall.

Here again we're tacitly reminded that machines cannot err. And again, it has a certain patina of veracity to it when considered that way. After all, a typewriter can only strike the letter it was instructed.

No, kind reader, this may be added evidence of the underlying programming in a nutshell: When confronted by the obvious, baldly refer back to the program, select the directed routine, and counter-claim that, naturally, the obvious cannot exist and therefore does not.

Now go compare this assertion to the visible world and ask yourself how programmers could miss such an obvious flaw in code they themselves composed, as brilliant as it otherwise may be in misdirecting attention.

#4.1.1.1 Ten on 2016-08-27 13:50 (Reply)

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight; or, not that we've noticed.

#4.1.1.2 Sam L. on 2016-08-27 14:13 (Reply)

That's yet another lie.

Your "facts" have been demonstrated to be untruths frequently.

#4.1.1.3 DrTorch on 2016-08-29 09:58 (Reply)

DrTorch: Your "facts" have been demonstrated to be untruths frequently.

Instead of vaguely waving your hands, you might actually point to purported facts posted on this thread that you dispute.

#4.1.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-29 10:33 (Reply)

Good Doctor, allow me to point out the predictability of ZBot's rudimentary programming. This can be handy. Compare its latest reply with my analysis above, offered just a couple of comments prior.

In it I observed what so many have: "Part of ZBot machinery is programmed to pounce on subjective facts, reframe them as opinion, and insist that only leftist opinion over on the other side of the room counts. This ZBot refers to in seemingly objective terms such as "we referred to", "the subject", "we were only", "facts", and other apparently unimpeachable linguistic labels and handles, such as the prohibition of an opponents "handwaving" aimed at lending ZBot machinery an inferred credibility it doesn't actually possess."

Remember, when dealing with machinery just figure out which way the gears turn and the rest is trivial. No play on words intended.

#4.1.1.3.2 Ten on 2016-08-29 13:17 (Reply)

mudbug: Bill Clinton's mentor was segregationist William Fulbright....

Lincoln was a racist by modern standards. So? The Clintons have worked very hard to overcome the legacy of racism, which is why she is garnering 95+% support in the black community, as well as strong support in the Asian, Latino, and Jewish communities.

Trump has repeatedly made racist comments just in the last few months. When called on them, he won't back off those statements. Furthermore, he cultivates support among the worst elements on the right.

#5 Zachriel on 2016-08-27 12:23 (Reply)

Lincoln was a racist compared to today's standards. Fulbright was a segregationist/racist in the current time. He filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and voted against the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Then in 1993, Clinton awarded him Presidential Medal of Freedom (I guess some can be free).

Since 1964, blacks have overwhelmingly vote for the Democrat. It makes no difference who it is.

Enlighten us with the racist comments Trump has made. In the mean time, remember that Clinton has cultivated support among the worst elements of the left: Black Lives Matter (who chant anti cop slogans) and whose inspiration is on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list, La Raza who wants to return Southwestern US to Mexico, and a host of Muslim potentates who love women so much, they won't let them drive, perform genital mutilation on them, and require women to have a male guardian (essentially a parent child relationship).

#5.1 mudbug on 2016-08-27 16:38 (Reply)

mudbug: Lincoln was a racist compared to today's standards. Fulbright was a segregationist/racist in the current time. He filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and voted against the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Then in 1993, Clinton awarded him Presidential Medal of Freedom (I guess some can be free).

And Lincoln's on Mount Rushmore.

mudbug: Since 1964, blacks have overwhelmingly vote for the Democrat.

In 1964, the Republicans nominated Goldwater, who was against the Civil Rights Act. Blacks left the Republican Party.

mudbug: Enlighten us with the racist comments Trump has made.

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

On why a judge can't give fair rulings: “He’s a Mexican." The judge is from Indiana.

“If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say."

“I don’t know where he was born," about Obama, the first black U.S. president who was born in the U.S.

#5.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-28 09:43 (Reply)

"Trump has repeatedly made racist comments just in the last few months."

I doubt it. Trump is certainly not a racist. This is the standard Democrat meme and truth is not required to spout it.

What " worst elements on the right"? By what criteria do you call them worst? Because they cherish the constitution? Because they believe in actual equal rights and law and order?

#6 SweetPea on 2016-08-27 13:53 (Reply)

SweetPea: I doubt it.

Paul Ryan, Republican Speaker of the House, said of Trump's comments on the Indiana judge, “Claiming a person can’t do the job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment. I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It’s absolutely unacceptable.”

Trump suggested that Mexican immigrants are mostly rapists and drug dealers.

Trump also said he would keep people out of the country based on their avowed religion.

Did you require other examples?

#6.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-27 16:29 (Reply)

What Ryan said is immaterial.

Show us the quote from Trump that shows he believes most Mexican illegal immigrants are rapists and drug dealers.

Trump has tightened up the description of his proposal concerning Muslims. He inartfully used "Muslim" as a synonym for "Syrian Muslim refugee about whom we know nothing." He also said that he would build nice refugee villages in the Middle East rather than import them into the US. He has since more recently stated that he is for extreme vetting.

Since those examples were pretty weak, more would be nice.

While you're coming up with more examples, maybe you can tell me if he ever called someone anything like a "F*ing Jew Bastard"?

#6.1.1 mudbug on 2016-08-27 16:51 (Reply)

mudbug: What Ryan said is immaterial.

When virtually everyone, including Trump-supporter and Speaker of the House, considers Trump's comment on the judge to be racist, it's strong evidence that the statement was, in fact, racist. You have to work hard to avoid the obvious implication of his words—that the judge can't be fair because "He's a Mexican." If his ethnicity wasn't an issue, then there was no reason to bring it up.

mudbug: Show us the quote from Trump that shows he believes most Mexican illegal immigrants are rapists and drug dealers.

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

mudbug: Trump has tightened up the description of his proposal concerning Muslims. He inartfully used "Muslim" as a synonym for "Syrian Muslim refugee about whom we know nothing."

Trump was initially very clear that he wanted to exclude all Muslims. Now he wants to exclude immigrants from countries that have been compromised by terrorism, which is just about every country.

#6.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-28 09:53 (Reply)

The idea that having your legal case resolved by someone with a different culture or from a different race didn't originate with Trump. It is a long standing belief of the left. Trials have been overturned for no other reason than an all white jury. Besides the judge in question was an immigration activist holding exact opposite views from Trump who could well be expected to let his biases cloud his jurisprudence.

He actually never said that about all Mexican immigrants as you well know. That is part of the game the left plays. One lefty accuses and all the rest of the lefties and MSM use that accusation is "proof" of the charge. Similar to what they do with the AGW issue.

Not just their avowed religion but their avowed political belief system (which is disguised as a religion). They absolutely disagree with everything America and the constitution stands for. It is the height of stupidity to bring Muslims into the West to live. They are insurgents and the antithesis of an American. Our government owes it to our citizens to not let Muslims immigrate and likely to not let them even come here temporarily.

Your examples were incorrect and thin veiled propaganda (just like everything else you say).

#6.1.2 SweetPea on 2016-08-27 21:47 (Reply)

SweetPea: The idea that having your legal case resolved by someone with a different culture or from a different race didn't originate with Trump. It is a long standing belief of the left.

The long, sorry history of the U.S. includes all-white juries deciding the fates of blacks accused of crimes. The juries were all-white because blacks were excluded from the right to vote, the right to serve on juries, the right to hold office.

SweetPea: Trials have been overturned for no other reason than an all white jury.

That is incorrect. Verdicts are constitutionally suspect when prosecutors unconstitutionally exclude blacks from the jury. See Batson v. Kentucky.

SweetPea: Besides the judge in question was an immigration activist holding exact opposite views from Trump who could well be expected to let his biases cloud his jurisprudence.

Then you appeal the decision, not impugn the judge without evidence other than his ethnicity. It's textbook racism otherwise.

SweetPea: He actually never said that about all Mexican immigrants as you well know.

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

SweetPea: It is the height of stupidity to bring Muslims into the West to live.

There you are then. Now we know of at least one uncontested example of overt religious discrimination. Of course this attitude is no different than previous bouts of Know Nothingism about Catholics or Italians or Jews or Asians.

#6.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-28 10:05 (Reply)

"The long, sorry history of the U.S." includes racism from all races. Today black racism is at terrible levels but the MSM chooses to ignore it.

"Then you appeal the decision"

LOL Somehow if it were you that was facing a trial you would prefer a fair trial rather than take your chances with a appeal.

And you disagree that Mexicans are coming across the border with drugs and commit crimes including rape and murder once they are here? Are you really unaware of the much higher crime rate for illegals and Hispanic citizens?

It is the height of stupidity to bring Muslims into the West to live. You are committed to the suicide pact of the left. One that i quite frankly do not understand. IMHO every time some little 5 year old girl is raped by one of these terrorist/refugees someone from the state department and congress should go to jail with them and be their cell mate. What our government is doing to us is criminal. Jail is to good for them I would prefer the guillotine. I do not want to join the loony left suicide pack of Hillary (Merkel) Clinton or Barack (god damn America) Obama. I do recognize that most Americans are lulled to complacency and won't wake up until the next 9/11 event which will likely be far worse this time. But when it happens and someone needs to pay the ultimate price for this treason we see today I am so happy that Leftist have stood up and taken that suicide pack on the record.

#6.1.2.1.1 SweetPea on 2016-08-28 10:58 (Reply)

SweetPea: Somehow if it were you that was facing a trial you would prefer a fair trial rather than take your chances with a appeal.

Trump said that the judge couldn't be fair because "He's a Mexican." That's textbook racism.

If Trump were to show that the judge was biased against because of his political views, then he might move to have the judge removed. Instead he impugned the judge because of his ethnicity alone.

SweetPea: And you disagree that Mexicans are coming across the border with drugs and commit crimes including rape and murder once they are here?

The vast majority of Mexican immigrants come to work. With the weak labor market, there are far fewer new Mexican immigrants.

SweetPea: Are you really unaware of the much higher crime rate for illegals and Hispanic citizens?

Incarceration rate for males 18-39:

immigrants, 1.6%
natives, 3.3%

SweetPea: Jail is to good for them I would prefer the guillotine.

Who? Government employees? All Muslim immigrants?

#6.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-28 11:10 (Reply)

"Trump said that the judge couldn't be fair because "He's a Mexican." That's textbook racism."

Actually it is not but rather simple awareness of the judges biases. What WOULD be textbook racism is if the judge decides against Trump because of Trump's presumed beliefs.

You cherry picked some stats or perhaps made them up. In fact the murder rate for hispanics is more than twice that of white Americans, the rape rate is equally high as is the long list of other felonies.

Yes the guillotine for government employees and politicians who voted for or enabled this massive influx of terrorists and muslim refugees. I do realize that we don't have any guillotines so I would happily vote for hanging from lamp posts, firing squads or if we have the time water boarding. Oh wait, water boarding doesn't kill you so that won't work.

#6.1.2.1.1.1.1 SweetPea on 2016-08-28 11:26 (Reply)

SweetPea: Actually it is not but rather simple awareness of the judges biases.

Trump is saying the judge he is not capable of rendering a fair judgment because "He is a Mexican." {The judge is from Indiana.}

SweetPea: What WOULD be textbook racism is if the judge decides against Trump because of Trump's presumed beliefs.

Prejudice against Trump because of his political beliefs does not meet the definition of racism. It could be a valid reason for petitioning to remove the judge, but from Trump's statement, he is saying no "Mexican" could fairly judge his case. That is textbook racism.

SweetPea: In fact the murder rate for hispanics is more than twice that of white Americans, the rape rate is equally high as is the long list of other felonies.

Hispanics tend to be younger, poorer, and more often male than the general population. In any case, check your stats. The vast majority of Hispanics are hard-working and law-abiding.

SweetPea: Yes the guillotine for government employees and politicians who voted for or enabled this massive influx of terrorists and muslim refugees. I do realize that we don't have any guillotines so I would happily vote for hanging from lamp posts, firing squads or if we have the time water boarding.

How do you plan to take care of those who try to stop you from murdering tens-of-thousands of people?

#6.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-28 13:23 (Reply)

"Trump is saying the judge he is not capable of rendering a fair judgment because "He is a Mexican." {The judge is from Indiana.)"

The Judge is a pro-illegal immigrant amnesty activist and a willing participant in an open racist organization La Raza. That is what you either do not understand or make believe you don't understand (lie). No "American" who considers themselves "American" is working as a pro-illegal amnesty activist. At best they never even think about someone sneaking into the country to steal our jobs and from our social support system. At worst they are aware of the problem and want the government to protect Americans and stop illegal immigration. This judge does NOT consider himself an "American" he considers his Mexican heritage and un-American self interest more important than America.

#6.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 SweetPea on 2016-08-28 15:08 (Reply)

SweetPea: The Judge is a pro-illegal immigrant amnesty activist and a willing participant in an open racist organization La Raza.

He's not a member of La Raza. In any case, Trump's claim was that he couldn't rule fairly because "He's a Mexican."

#6.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-28 15:23 (Reply)

"He's not a member of La Raza"

I did not say he was. He has a collaborative relationship with La Raza for the purpose of keeping illegal immigrants in this country and furthering amnesty.

"couldn't rule fairly because "He's a Mexican."

Could a KKK member fairly judge a case on an African American? I do honestly believe that Trump is right on this. This judge by his actions has shown that his political views on race and illegal immigration are 180 opposite of Trumps very outspoken views. Why then would anyone believe that the judge wouldn't let his political views bias his professional actions?

#6.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 SweetPea on 2016-08-28 16:16 (Reply)

Sweet Pea: He has a collaborative relationship with La Raza for the purpose of keeping illegal immigrants in this country and furthering amnesty.

Two-thirds of Americans support a path to citizenship. That hardly puts Curiel out of the mainstream.

Sweet Pea: Could a KKK member fairly judge a case on an African American?

The KKK is explicitly prejudiced. Supporting a path to citizenship for immigrants is hardly racism.

Sweet Pea: This judge by his actions has shown that his political views on race and illegal immigration are 180 opposite of Trumps very outspoken views.

That's like saying a Republican judge can't render a fair legal decision on a Democrat. That's antithetical to the legal system. The case has nothing to do with immigration, in any case.

#6.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-29 09:38 (Reply)

"Two-thirds of Americans support a path to citizenship"

Most likely a fraudulent stat. However it is unlikely that 2/3rds of Americans would say this if they knew it would mean a continued assault on our borders by millions and millions and millions of illegal invaders. This is most likely the end of America. We will become a third world nation. Most people don't know this because most people are being deceived by the left.

"The KKK is explicitly prejudiced"

Exactly because they prefer one race over another. And how is La Raza different???

"That's antithetical to the legal system."

Exactly. The lawyer/judge made a mistake, exposed his bias and is unfit. Just as Ruth Bader Ginsburg ran her mouth and exposed her bias.

#6.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 SweetPea on 2016-08-29 10:39 (Reply)

SweetPea: Most likely a fraudulent stat.

Gallup: In U.S., 65% Favor Path to Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants

PRRI: More than six in ten (62%) Americans say immigrants who are currently living here illegally should be allowed a way to become citizens provided they meet certain requirements

SweetPea: Exactly because they prefer one race over another. And how is La Raza different???

Judge Curiel is not a member of La Raza.

(By the way La Raza comes from Vasconcelos' La Raza Cósmica, or the Comic Race, referring to the mixing of races — European, Native, African, Asian — found in Latin America.)

SweetPea: The lawyer/judge made a mistake, exposed his bias and is unfit.

The only evidence Trump has that the judge is biased is that he is a "Mexican". (The judge is from Indiana.) If the judge exposed his bias, he can be removed. However, there is no evidence of bias against Trump or his case. He just doesn't like the judges decisions, which are also subject to review.

#6.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-29 10:50 (Reply)

"In U.S., 65% Favor Path to Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants"

With the right questions and using a push poll you can get 65% of the people to agree to anything. It is highly unlikely that any person on welfare would favor a path to citizenship for 20 million illegal and the tens of millions who will follow them if we ever do roll over on a path to citizenship, IF they understood that it will kill welfare. It is unlikely that any majority of middle class people will agree to a path to citizenship if they understand that THEY will pay for all of it with their taxes. Most Americans are simply unaware of the consequences of amnesty. We had amnesty in 1986 to fix the problem forever!! Forever!!! Now we have 20 million illegals sucking off the federal teat. If we give 20 million amnesty how many illegal immigrants will we have in 20 years? 100 million? 120 million? 200 million???
That is what the people who take polls do not know and I can assure you that the people taking the polls don't tell them this.

#6.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 SweetPea on 2016-08-29 19:18 (Reply)

SweetPea: With the right questions and using a push poll you can get 65% of the people to agree to anything.

We cited two different polls by two different organizations. Instead of handwaving, you might cite some other evidence, or at least show why these polls are in error.

#6.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-08-30 09:13 (Reply)

SweetPea: Most Americans are simply unaware of the consequences of amnesty.

That's an argument for why Americans should be against amnesty, not that Americans don't, in fact, support a pathway to citizenship. They do. Therefore, as pointed out above, Curiel is not outside the mainstream of opinion concerning support for a pathway to citizenship. Nor is there evidence that Trump's odd idea of building a "big, beautiful, powerful wall" and making Mexico pay for it is influencing the judge's decisions on an unrelated matter. Turns out that judges often have to reach decisions concerning the lives of people with odd ideas.

#6.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2016-08-30 09:51 (Reply)

Progressive: A term I associate with cancer. With reason.

#7 Sam L. on 2016-08-27 14:14 (Reply)

Every Hillary supporter I know thinks "Mexican" is a race. Most think "Muslim" is a race as well.

#8 Talnik on 2016-08-27 15:06 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, August 27. 2016

Saturday morning links