Do You Agree with Trump’s Comments on Judge Curiel?

[Nous]

Do you agree with Trump’s claims that the judge presiding over the fraud case against “Trump University” has “an absolute conflict” and is “biased” in the case because, in Trump’s words, “he's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico"? http://www.npr.org/2016/06/04/48071...at-mexican-judge-curiel-is-biased-against-him

Do you agree with Trump’s comments that “[t]he people asking the questions--those are the racists,” and his telling his supporters, "I would go at 'em"? http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-87485336/

Do you think it is a good campaign strategy for Trump to make these comments--i.e., that his comments will inspire potential voters to vote for him, and that Hispanic voters will not be offended by his statements?

What about the Republican leaders--Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Newt Gingrich, et al.--who criticized Trump’s remarks? Should they not have done this? Should they try to understand that judge Curiel, because “he’s a Mexican,” has “an absolute conflict” in the case against “Trump University”?

If you do not agree with Trump’s comments, do you think that his comments, as a candidate running for President, are indicative of poor judgment such as he might exhibit if he were elected?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Trump just reinforcing how disgusting he is, using racism as a political weapon to deflect attention from his criminal activities, and his brain-dead supporters will eat it up.

 

[Quetzal]

If you do not agree with Trump’s comments, do you think that his comments, as a candidate running for President, are indicative of poor judgment such as he might exhibit if he were elected?

Yes, to put it lightly.

 

[Mindmaster]

Trump is saying exactly whatever he needs to get the leftists to keep whining about him in the press. He's a genius really. Hillary has wet dreams about how successful he is at media manipulation, no doubt. That's all the judge commentary is. He's not exactly racist, but he's stewing up the people who he knows are dumb enough to fall for it and give him the free press. Mission accomplished?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Trump is saying exactly whatever he needs to get the leftists to keep whining about him in the press. He's a genius really. Hillary has wet dreams about how successful he is at media manipulation, no doubt. That's all the judge commentary is. He's not exactly racist, but he's stewing up the people who he knows are dumb enough to fall for it and give him the free press. Mission accomplished?

Blurting out whatever comes to mind first, then the press fact-checking it and showing how wrong you are and then threatening journalists and the freedom of the press if elected, does not a "master" of anything make. He's a moron. An authoritarian moron with no respect for the rule of law, common decency and civil liberties (such as the First Amendment), at that. He's not even a cunning psychopath. The intelligent ones are at least charming and sophisticated.

 

[fantome profane]

Trump is saying exactly whatever he needs to get the leftists to keep whining about him in the press. He's a genius really. Hillary has wet dreams about how successful he is at media manipulation, no doubt. That's all the judge commentary is. He's not exactly racist, but he's stewing up the people who he knows are dumb enough to fall for it and give him the free press. Mission accomplished?

Up till now I have to admit he has done an incredible job at manipulating the media. This however seems to be a misstep on his part. He could have spent this week talking about Hillary's emails. But instead he has spent this week in defense mode. Yes the media is still all about him, but this has not been a good week for Trump.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you agree with Trump’s claims that the judge presiding over the fraud case against “Trump University” has “an absolute conflict” and is “biased” in the case because, in Trump’s words, “he's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico"? http://www.npr.org/2016/06/04/48071...at-mexican-judge-curiel-is-biased-against-him

Do you agree with Trump’s comments that “[t]he people asking the questions--those are the racists,” and his telling his supporters, "I would go at 'em"? http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-87485336/

Do you think it is a good campaign strategy for Trump to make these comments--i.e., that his comments will inspire potential voters to vote for him, and that Hispanic voters will not be offended by his statements?

What about the Republican leaders--Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Newt Gingrich, et al.--who criticized Trump’s remarks? Should they not have done this? Should they try to understand that judge Curiel, because “he’s a Mexican,” has “an absolute conflict” in the case against “Trump University”?

If you do not agree with Trump’s comments, do you think that his comments, as a candidate running for President, are indicative of poor judgment such as he might exhibit if he were elected?

Having been in front of judges many times, I find that they're often capricious & ruled by their own demons.
Whether Trump's accusation is reasonable or not, I completely understand wanting avoid being judged by
someone with the least possibility of prejudice towards one. I'm indicting the system here, particularly
what's called "black robe syndrome", ie, the propensity to make bad rulings based upon personal peccadilloes
with impunity.

 

[Sunstone]

Trump is taking naive people and true believers for a ride by saying this has to do with the judge's objectivity. If the judge were biased, Trump's lawyers would be filing motions against him, but they are silent. They know they can't prove bias. Trump's attacks didn't start until the judge released Trump university documents that Trump didn't want released. This has everything to do with the release of those documents and nothing to do with the judge being biased. Trump is taking his followers and fools for a ride.

 

[Acim]

Do you agree with Trump’s claims that the judge presiding over the fraud case against “Trump University” has “an absolute conflict” and is “biased” in the case because, in Trump’s words, “he's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico"? http://www.npr.org/2016/06/04/48071...at-mexican-judge-curiel-is-biased-against-him

At best, I agree the judge is biased. Disagree with absolute conflict. Whatever Trump was trying to argue for ought to have been handled by his lawyers if there was even a hint of conflict of interest. Politically dumb.

Do you agree with Trump’s comments that “[t]he people asking the questions--those are the racists,” and his telling his supporters, "I would go at 'em"? http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-87485336/

I'm yet to see actual racism in this situation. Around 95% of the time I see that word being used, I'm pretty sure people using it don't know what it means. Apparently Trump would be one of those people (at least in this situation). Trump's original comment was not racist. The "go at em" comment is taken out of context, but don't see how it helps the situation that Trump walked into. On other issues, I think such a message is warranted (in the original type of context it was stated).

Do you think it is a good campaign strategy for Trump to make these comments--i.e., that his comments will inspire potential voters to vote for him, and that Hispanic voters will not be offended by his statements?

I think non critical-thinking people who either like/favor Trump or hate/dislike Trump will be fueled by this situation. I would hope Hispanic voters would be thinking critically rather than emotionally when it comes to upcoming elections for POTUS.

What about the Republican leaders--Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Newt Gingrich, et al.--who criticized Trump’s remarks? Should they not have done this? Should they try to understand that judge Curiel, because “he’s a Mexican,” has “an absolute conflict” in the case against “Trump University”?

Criticizing him strikes me as prudent, but pretty sure Gingrich and a couple others called it out as racist. Adding to my claim that 95% of the people using that word seemingly don't understand what that word actually means. Had Trump made a claim that no person of Mexican descent is capable of being a (American) judge, then I could see the charge of racism. As this is not what he said, nor close to it really, then I'm wanting to call out / debate anyone that would wish to claim Trump's comments are racist.

If you do not agree with Trump’s comments, do you think that his comments, as a candidate running for President, are indicative of poor judgment such as he might exhibit if he were elected?

To me, it's as poor of a comment as saying, "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." So yes, it is indicative of poor judgment. In my lifetime, I'm not aware of a POTUS who has not exhibited poor judgment.

 

[Underhill]

I don't know why we are still talking about this. At this point, if you don't know Trump as an arrogant blowhard, you have haven't been paying attention.

Yes, he isn't afraid to speak his mind. Sow what does this kind of garbage tell you about the state of his mind?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

At best, I agree the judge is biased.

Based on what evidence?

 

[Quetzal]

I'm yet to see actual racism in this situation.

He is basing his statements about her not on her credentials or professional background, but her race. How is it not a racist statement?

 

[metis]

How is trying to manipulate the judge through intimidation any different than trying to manipulate the jury through intimidation?

To me, it's totally mind-boggling, but unfortunately expected, that so many defend Trump's many racist, religiously bigoted, and sexist statements as just "campaign rhetoric", as if what he says should just be mostly ignored. Fortunately, there are an increasing number of Republican politicians who are beginning to get fed up with the Donald-- unfortunately there's still not enough of them.

Would I post the same if either Bernie or Hillary made such bigoted statements? Yes, and without hesitation.

 

[tytlyf]

Ah, the old southern strategy is coming back to life. Playing the race card for votes sure isn't a way to win elections these days. It worked 50 years ago

 

[metis]

Ah, the old southern strategy is coming back to life. Playing the race card for votes sure isn't a way to win elections these days. It worked 50 years ago

Ya, but I don;t think there's enough angry white men to carry him over the top unless Hillary totally tanks.

 

[Acim]

Based on what evidence?

That all people are biased (foremost). That if I met this person, and spoke with them for say an hour, I'd very likely be able to convey their specific biases should anyone be under the illusion that a judge is without any biases.

 

[Acim]

He is basing his statements about her not on her credentials or professional background, but her race. How is it not a racist statement?

A racist statement is not every negative statement about a person and their racial makeup. Do you wanna, ya know, use the dictionary definition of racism / racist to help settle any dispute around this? Or go strictly by the PC understanding of racism?

Just because it is not racism, doesn't mean it can't be appropriately determined for the negative assertion it is. Bigotry is as strong as I would go. I see it more in vein of prejudice (about judges in general) and stereotyping (judges who, from Trump perspective, are proud of their heritage which would, for Trump, lead to a conflict of interest).

 

[ADigitalArtist]

A racist statement is not every negative statement about a person and their racial makeup. Do you wanna, ya know, use the dictionary definition of racism / racist to help settle any dispute around this? Or go strictly by the PC understanding of racism?

Just because it is not racism, doesn't mean it can't be appropriately determined for the negative assertion it is. Bigotry is as strong as I would go. I see it more in vein of prejudice (about judges in general) and stereotyping (judges who, from Trump perspective, are proud of their heritage which would, for Trump, lead to a conflict of interest).

As an outspoken atheist, no religious person should ever judge any case I'm a part of because it's a clear conflict of interest. They will pass improper judgement because clearly they can't be trusted to do their job when faced with someone who disagrees with them.

 

[Quetzal]

A racist statement is not every negative statement about a person and their racial makeup. Do you wanna, ya know, use the dictionary definition of racism / racist to help settle any dispute around this? Or go strictly by the PC understanding of racism?

Just because it is not racism, doesn't mean it can't be appropriately determined for the negative assertion it is. Bigotry is as strong as I would go. I see it more in vein of prejudice (about judges in general) and stereotyping (judges who, from Trump perspective, are proud of their heritage which would, for Trump, lead to a conflict of interest).

You need to be careful if you want to play semantics. I said that I thought it was a racist statement, not that Trump was a racist (there is a difference). That is, I believe that the statement he made was a statement that was made in a derogatory fashion based solely on the race of the individual. It is a statement I stand by for now.

 

[tytlyf]

A racist statement is not every negative statement about a person and their racial makeup. Do you wanna, ya know, use the dictionary definition of racism / racist to help settle any dispute around this? Or go strictly by the PC understanding of racism?

Just because it is not racism, doesn't mean it can't be appropriately determined for the negative assertion it is. Bigotry is as strong as I would go. I see it more in vein of prejudice (about judges in general) and stereotyping (judges who, from Trump perspective, are proud of their heritage which would, for Trump, lead to a conflict of interest).

Most republicans are calling it racist. Sorry you don't agree. It's obviously a racist statement. Even dog whistles are racist statement because only a racist would make such a comment. That's ok, just more signs of the upcoming huge landslide in Nov.