Poll: Exactly Half of Voters Found Trump’s Judge Statements “Racist”

Loading

Ace:

And yet nearly 100% of the media, the GOP establishment, and the conservative intellectual class found them “racist.”

So what can we determine based on this?

Well, here are the possibilities:

1. That the media, the GOP establishment, and the conservative intellectual class are simply better — smarter, more perceptive, more moral — than the stupid fucking American voters they hover above on their gossamer thrones of cloudwisp and starshine.

2. That the media, GOP establishment, and conservative intellectual class share similar cultural/class inputs which lead them to think in exactly the same way, and the lack of intellectual diversity among them tends to make them miss things that other people know, and furthermore, their intellectual insularity — forever talking only to each other, and carefully curating out of their timelines anyone from any different sort of background — then hardens them in their unchallenged opinion.

For example, Ginch Bangwell (Kurt Schlichter), who is a practicing lawyer, said the first thing every lawyer does when he gets a judge assigned to a case is check his background, including who appointed him and even (boo! hiss!) his racial, class, cultural, and professional background (was he a DA, or a defense attorney, or a corporate type, or public interest lawyer, etc.) And then any lawyer who doesn’t want to be ejected from the profession for malpractice tailors his arguments, and weighs the odds of victory, according to those back-of-the-envelope psychometric calculations.

But, to hear the professional middle class/media/conservative intellectual class tell it, such calculations and guesses are wholly inappropriate and are textbook racism and no one who is involved in a legal matter should ever make guesses about judge behavior based on “profiling.”

Or, as a commenter put it here: Certainly, it is not the case that every prosecutor tries to stirke as many black women from a jury as the constitution will permit, and every defense attorney definitely does not try to strike every middle-aged white man from the jury.

I mean — it’s ideologically forbidden. And Theory is all that matters in the real world.

Theory’s all that matters, guys. And certainly an Intellectual Class should be proud and evenarrogant about its utter lack of contact with the real world.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/YlVDGmjz7eM[/youtube]

Unchallenged unanimity of opinion is healthy in any intellectual tradition!

Once upon a time, conservatives prided themselves on being more practically-minded than their ideologically-possessed liberal brethren. They’d roll their eyes at the most strident, Strong Form, Politically Correct and Pure claims about the absolute inappropriateness ofever taking race or background into account — whether choosing who to give additional screenings to on TSA lines, or who to pat down for contraband or guns, or even who to cross the street to avoid late at night.

No more. The conservative intellectual class has now embraced the most airy-fairy disconnected-from-any-tangible-reality Strong Form of political correctness long urged by the left, and it all took to get them to agree to this was to have it be momentarily convenient in making the case against Trump.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
41 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The conservative intellectual class has now embraced the most airy-fairy disconnected-from-any-tangible-reality Strong Form of political correctness long urged by the left, and it all took to get them to agree to this was to have it be momentarily convenient in making the case against Trump.

That is the definition of a cuckservative, folks.
Now, these few, these proud, these ultra sold-out might be looking for an off ramp to PC land.
There is a conference in Park City Utah this week called the E2.
In it, led by Mitt Romney, either this group doubles down on PC cuckservativeness OR they try to gracefully extricate themselves from the Left’s stranglehold on their freedom of expression.
The conference was open to all like-minded ”Never Trumps,” and only 200 plan to show up.

I’ve found that for every cry of “racist” against Trump, one person decides to vote for him.

Telling.

To be clear, by definition Trump’s comments hit the racism criteria on the head. It’s rather indisputable. And he’s even double downed on it.

I read a awhile back that around 10% of college educated adults thought that judge Judy was a Supreme Court Justice. Perhaps 10% of the media, GOP establishment, and conservative intellectual class should agree?

@Ajay42302:

To be clear, by definition Trump’s comments hit the racism criteria on the head. It’s rather indisputable. And he’s even double downed on it.

Yes, let’s be clear. VERY clear. What part of what Trump said (not what the media reported he said, implied, meant) was racist?

For, that is the crux of it. Trump never said the judge could not function because he is a Mexican. He said the judge supports illegal immigration and illegal immigrants and is, most assuredly (since it is inherent in liberals) biased against a defendant that OPPOSES illegal immigration and illegal immigrants.

For instance, on another topic, one of the leftists wrote that Trump “said” he is going to deport 11 million illegal immigrants and how idiotic the attempt to do that is. So, I went a-searching for where Trump “said” that. Guess what… he didn’t. He never said it. You know who did? The corrupt, lying, left wing media said it. Reports of a conversation with Trump where he stated he would use smart, efficient means and methods of deportation to streamline the process ALL say (usually in the headline) that Trump “says” he is going to deport 11 million.

It is clear that the US media cannot be trusted with the truth and EVERYTHING it reports must be double-checked, as well as the useful idiots that run about repeating the lies without bothering to read the stories.

One’s own personal level of racism is directly and inversely proportional to one’s own personal ability to detect liberal hypocrisy, dishonesty and hate and effectively articulate that observation.

@Ajay42302: To be clear, by definition Trump’s comments hit the racism criteria on the head. It’s rather indisputable. And he’s even double downed on it

.

That’s what one MUST do to widen the Overton Window away from the Left’s imposed PC limitations, Ajay.
And that must be done for us to even start a conversation.
PC fantasy limits on free expression need to be destroyed.
Donald Trump has been doing this since the 1st day he took to a bank of microphones and announced his run, a year ago.
Who else is in on this work?
Mark Steyn who fought through the courts in Canada for the right to ACCURATELY quote a Muslim imam about the form of jihad done by sending in high numbers of immigrants to a non-Muslim area.
Milo Yiannopoulos going on campuses ripping apart feminism, social justice warriors, and PC police.

Then there’s the gross hypocrisy from the Left, itself, which destroys their narrative even more:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/10/the-obama-admin-blocked-an-iranian-american-judge-from-hearing-iranian-immigration-cases/

@Ajay42302: Do you know what a Black Person is called in Canada?
A Canadian.

The only substantial part of you”re post is the last four numerals found in the heading, which I will use tonight ,”for the children,” in the lottery drawing.

@Nanny G: So, Trump’s just wanting honest dialog? He’s wanting to raise the argument on racism because, well, liberals want to contain it for their advantage, or something? This as you say, is what must be done.

Was this the objective of the keeping the bitrther issue front and center? I really don’t think so. Is this what Lee Atwater was talking about when he admitted the need of perfecting the Southern Strategy, that you had to use “coded” language and be “abstract” because while the Republican chant of “nigger nigger nigger” was politically advantageous in the 50s, there would be “backlash” openly using that playbook going forward? Again, I don’t think open dialog was their objective.

To once again be clear, Trump’s mouth is the loose cannon of today’s conservatives playbook, actually saying the very things they’ve endorsed for years yet never ever wanted it said out loud. They wanted to keep it “coded” and “abstract”. And this is precisely why they are cringing and ducking for cover. This is why even folks like Meg Whitman and numerous GOP donors are distancing themselves or openly denouncing Trump.

@Bill: Even if Trump were to abandon Atwater’s suggestions and continued with the outright racial slurs, openly calling them the “n’ word, you would still be here with “I don’t get it” “How is he racist?” “What did he say to call him a racist?” “Why is the media being unfair to him?”, “Uh, I just don’t get it”.

@Ajay42302: Where’ve you been?
The GOPe has been slowly coming around to endorse Trump one at a time, with a few exceptions.
You cited one of them.
Romney is another.

As for ”coded talk, the Left has spent the last 100 years honing Marxism into today’s Political Correctness.
Both are totalitarian but the totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, where it originated.
Both Marxism and PC notice that reality contradicts them, so reality must be forbidden.
People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and say, “Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true,” the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie.
We’ve seen that with gay ”marriage,” open bathrooms, even feminism and so-called ”social justice warriors.”

Expropriation of what should be merit-based is common in both.
Marxism had the ”inner circle,” with its favors and plenty.
PC has a hierarchy of most-favored victims.
Who ranks higher? the feminist male or the homosexual? the homosexual or the Muslim?
The transgender (in mind only, no shots or surgery) or the little girl?

The Overton Window is a subset inside PC.
The PC crowd deigns what is acceptable for politicians to discuss at all.
Both the Dems as well as the GOPe agree to these terms and stay inside the ever-shrinking Overton Window.
Thus, before Trump, we were going to have a campaign whereby illegal aliens and the crimes committed by them was going to be off-limits.
In fact all of the candidates on both sides were more-or-less pro amnesty and open borders.

You want to talk about ”code words,” and ”dog whistles.”
Who uses them?
The Left.
Obama’s only reason he met with Republicans in either house of Congress was ”so I’d know whose butt to kick.”
Hillary was asked about who were America’s worst enemies. ”Republicans” she answered without hesitation.
A liberal editor told those on the Left that violence, just short of KILLING, was justifiable if it helped stop Trump.
In the BLM movement the false meme, ”Hands up, don’t shoot,” is still being used!
Feminists can’t make up their minds: 1. Women are superior to men. OR 2. Women need to be equal to men.
Whites pretend to be blacks.
Men pretend to be women.

And Obama is using the power of the state to try to force us to pretend we believe it all.
Why would you prefer the lie to truth?

Romney, on Donald Trump. This guy didn’t bump out Barack Obama, but he might well have beat Hillary Clinton. Compared with Trump and a number of those who have held their noses and endorsed him, Romney sounds like a voice of pure reason.

@Ajay42302:

@Bill: Even if Trump were to abandon Atwater’s suggestions and continued with the outright racial slurs,

“Continue”? What has been the racial slurs? You, like every other liberal, are just DYING to find some racism to use.

Still waiting for the first example of Trump’s racism or bigotry. You got anything more than “Well, if I have to tell you…” You might as well be made aware, no one is fooled. We realize you have no idea of any racism on the conservative side. You just throw it out there hoping to close down discussion or redirect attention.

Give it up. It ain’t working.

@Greg:
How can you beat anybody if you sit out that last month of the campaign against them?
That’s what Romney did.
And he’d do it again.
But, he’s not getting that chance.

@Nanny G: I painfully read your rambling diatribe 3 times and all I can deduce is that you’re fine with ignoring the Southern Strategy and Trump’s blatant bigotry and abject dishonesty because something about a sole editor that you deduce as liberal endorsed murder and that you hate liberals very very much and of course, Obama and Hillary are very very bad and oh by the way, BLM this women’s rights that.

Trump’s an abject bigot who is letting the cat out of the bag of exactly what today’s conservatives are all about, sending them running for cover. The media is reporting as they should and of course, those on the right are blaming them as the culprit.

And yes Bill, I well understand that you don’t see that, don’t understand that, and that you never ever will.

@Ajay42302:

Trump’s an abject bigot who is letting the cat out of the bag of exactly what today’s conservatives are all about

Let’s try this once again… what are the examples of Trump’s bigotry?

Meanwhile, I suppose you are happily taking ownership of the Democrat’s history of opposing citizenship for former slaves, women’s vote, civil rights, their long-running support of racism, discrimination, the KKK and their everlasting use of minorities as pawns. Why, yes… it seems you are.

Trump, on top of the situation:

“What has happened in Orlando is just the beginning. Our leadership is weak and ineffective. I called it and asked for the ban. Must be tough”

“Is President Obama going to finally mention the words radical Islamic terrorism? If he doesn’t he should immediately resign in disgrace!”

The man is an opportunistic jackass.

@Bill:
As I’ve said before Bill, you just can’t have an adult intelligent conversation with Trump lickers. They’re just too angry, stubborn, and in complete denial of facts. It’s like Trump said, he could kill someone and it would only rally his lickers. He can say anything, do anything, degrade anyone, and his lickers would only shove their heads up his ass further.

In this very case, consider Trump’s interview:

Tapper: But I don’t care if you criticize him. That’s fine. You can criticize every decision. What I’m saying is, if you invoke his race as a reason why he can’t do his job …

Trump: I think that’s why he’s doing it.

Tapper: But …

Trump: I think that’s why he’s doing it.

Tapper: But he’s not — he’s not from Mexico. He’s from Indiana.

Trump: In my opinion — he is — his Mexican — Mexican heritage.

I don’t see how you can run from that racism. I don’t see how you can refuse to acknowledge playing the race card in the birther issue. I don’t see how you can advocate banning an entire religion simply because of that religion. I don’t see how you can justify identifying immigrants as rapist and such because of their heritage and then claim it isn’t racism or prejudiced.

But then, I’m not a Trump licker.

@Greg:

“What has happened in Orlando is just the beginning. Our leadership is weak and ineffective. I called it and asked for the ban. Must be tough”

Oh, so somehow stating the facts and what needs to be done to prevent this type of tragedy is opportunistic? How about blaming the gun, not the terrorist, as Obama did within 90 seconds of beginning his statement today?

@Ajay42302: Run from something that does not exist? Is that it… your “proof”? Trump is talking about a far left liberal judge that supports La Raza (that means “The Race”, a group whose leaders say their goal is eradication of the white race), supports illegal immigration, supports subsidies and free tuition of illegal immigrants. Now, who it it that is running from racism?

I don’t see how you can refuse to acknowledge playing the race card in the birther issue.

Who CREATED the birther issue? Do you have any idea? Nah, you don’t… you are far too ignorant and steeped in left wing propaganda. Here, let me help you.

Hillary aide begins the birther controversy
http://legalnewsline.com/stories/510520259-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-obama-citizenship-challenge

http://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/birtherism-where-it-all-began-053563

So, I guess Hillary is a racist, right? After all, that is your accusation.

Using racism as a political weapon is racist. No, nothing in what Trump said is racist, but you want it to be so badly that your racism drives you to make it so.

@Bill: So, uh, I’m a racist because I disavow Trumps racism?

Obviously, my fault for trying to reason with a Trump lcker.

@Ajay42302: No, you are racist because you INVENT racism where there is none and then play with it like it’s a toy.

@Bill:
You are truely a blind partisan hack. Or, your typical Trump licker with your wheels of intellect stuck in a rut, unable to free itself from the irrational channel it follows.

@Bill:

Trump is talking about a far left liberal judge that supports La Raza (that means “The Race”, a group whose leaders say their goal is eradication of the white race), supports illegal immigration, supports subsidies and free tuition of illegal immigrants.

Perhaps you can show the connection between La Raza and the Hispanic lawyers association that the Judge belongs to, the same association that a Fox News commentator belongs to? Perhaps you can show where that lawyer’s association
“supports illegal immigration, supports subsidies and free tuition of illegal immigrants”? And while you’re at it, perhaps you can show where this particular judge is “a far left liberal judge that supports La Raza”, the organization, not the lawyer’s association?

Exactly what rulings of this particular judge makes him “far left” on the bench?

@Bill, #16:

I think Donald Trump is an idiot. Of all the people republicans could have backed, they’ve chosen this guy. I honestly don’t get it.

@Greg: Yet you fully understand backing a lying, corrupt incompetent that is under criminal investigation by the FBI.

You think Trump is an idiot. That is a subjective opinion. I KNOW Hillary is a liar and is corrupt… that is based on the PROOF she herself has provided.

Therein lies the difference.

@retire05:

Perhaps you can show the connection between La Raza and the Hispanic lawyers association that the Judge belongs to, the same association that a Fox News commentator belongs to?

While I am not quite sure what a Fox News commentator has to do with this subject (please enlighten me), here is the connection between Curiel, the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association and La Raza.

http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/06/trump-u-judges-group-tied-to-national-council-of-laraza/#dVSDh41H6ihqcx1C.99

Perhaps you can show where that lawyer’s association
“supports illegal immigration, supports subsidies and free tuition of illegal immigrants”?

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=153

http://www.centerforimmigrationtruth.org/

http://humanevents.com/2006/04/07/emexclusive-emthe-truth-about-la-raza/

And while you’re at it, perhaps you can show where this particular judge is “a far left liberal judge that supports La Raza”, the organization, not the lawyer’s association?

See above.

Exactly what rulings of this particular judge makes him “far left” on the bench?

I don’t believe I said he made any “far left” rulings, did I? In fact, I didn’t even say Trump was right. What I DID say is that there is plenty of reason for Trump to have the suspicions he has, based on liberal judges’ tendency to rule in favor of their ideology rather than the law. Having those suspicions, based on the evidence, is not racist by any measure. It is only racist when one has no other argument but to deem it racist.

Of course the poll doesn’t ask how many of those polled only took the MSM at their word that “Trump said something racist”.

@Ditto: You mean like those here that SWEAR Trump is racist yet cannot produce a single shred of evidence he is? And, even after having that SHOWN to them, they still swear it?

@Bill:

I don’t believe I said he made any “far left” rulings, did I? In fact, I didn’t even say Trump was right. What I DID say is that there is plenty of reason for Trump to have the suspicions he has, based on liberal judges’ tendency to rule in favor of their ideology rather than the law.

Liberal judge(s)? What proof do you have that this particular Hispanic judge is liberal? Or that he has any tendency to rule in favor of any particular ideology and not the law?

Having those suspicions, based on the evidence, is not racist by any measure. It is only racist when one has no other argument but to deem it racist.

What evidence? You have none, zip, nada. You’re just regurgitating crap from the Trump campaign, not even his own lawyer, who said the judge was fair in his rulings.

Suspicions? Yeah, like that is a legal argument. NOT! Back those “suspicions” up with case history, not imaginary reasons.

@retire05: Exactly Trump’s own lawyer said the judge was fair in his rulings. IMO the judge did Trump a huge favor by delaying the procedings till after the election.

@Richard Wheeler:

Using Trump’s standards, I guess, if for any reason I am ever involved in a court case where I am the defendant, I should have objections to any judge that is white or of British heritage since I am Irish and Cherokee. Or a Democrat since I am a Repblican or comes from yankee stock since I am a Southerner. Whoo-hoo, I just eliminated well over 75% of judges.

@retire05: Attorneys often DO object to anything that hints of a prejudice. I was asked in jury selection for a trial about a guy dying of a heart attack on the job if I could forget everything I had been taught about what causes a heart attack. I said, “well, no, I don’t think I can” and I was invited to leave.

@Bill:

Not that I’m calling you a fabricator, but the facts surrounding the case you were questioned about do seem deliberately vague. And when dismissed as a possible juror, you are instructed to leave, not “invited” to leave which would make leaving optional. When a prospective juror is dismissed, the judge says “Mr. Bill, you are free to leave.” At least try to get the dialog correct. Jury selection happens AFTER more than one prospective juror is questioned. And frankly, if you were dismissed as a juror, you have no way of knowing why.

Now, unless you have any specific evidence, outside of innuendos, that the judge in in the Trump U case is biased or unfair in anyway, as proven by his judicial record, both you and the carnival barker, Trump, need to shut your pie holes.

@retire05: Sorry I don’t have the transcript on me, but it happened some 25 or so years ago. Since I didn’t have it transcribed, I paraphrased. The fact of the matter is, though, that the attorney didn’t want anyone with a medical education, even if it was only EMT training for first aid. Kind of getting the picture?

Now, unless you have any specific evidence, outside of innuendos, that the judge in in the Trump U case is biased or unfair in anyway, as proven by his judicial record, both you and the carnival barker, Trump, need to shut your pie holes.

My, aren’t you the venomous little thing? The entire point is that Trump has as much right and reason to suspect bias by a liberal judge as anyone… there is NOTHING racist about it, which has been the accusation. Apparently is nothing untoward for liberals to suspect anyone that is not full-throttle abortion-happy is not worthy of being a capable judge. Liberals are renown for their bias and Trump is absolutely right to be suspicious of this particular one, as I more than sufficiently proved.

@Bill:

My, aren’t you the venomous little thing?

I can be, especially when confronted with abject stupidity.

The entire point is that Trump has as much right and reason to suspect bias by a liberal judge as anyone… there is NOTHING racist about it, which has been the accusation.

When that suspicion is based on nothing other than a person’s ethnic heritage, yes, that is racism. Or perhaps you would like to show where Trump has fired his own legal counsel for saying the judge is fair because if I were being put before a judge whose actions on the bench had shown that judge had an ardent dislike for Cherokees, I damn sure would be able to prove it, no just make spurious claims.

Trump is absolutely right to be suspicious of this particular one, as I more than sufficiently proved.

You didn’t prove squat. You gave some links that talked about the NCLR, but none of them mentioned one word about the judge. You’re claiming guilt by association, when you cannot even prove there is any association.

@retire05:

When that suspicion is based on nothing other than a person’s ethnic heritage, yes, that is racism.

True that… but, as I showed, that’s not why Trump objected, was it? As you yourself stated, it was his association, not his heritage, that Trump said would tilt the scales. Why would a judge be associated with La Raza if not due to being sympathetic to their cause, in this case, supporting illegal immigration?

@Bill:

When that suspicion is based on nothing other than a person’s ethnic heritage, yes, that is racism.

True that… but, as I showed, that’s not why Trump objected, was it?

When you keep harping on the fact that the judge is Hispanic, and then, you know….the wall, that is a pretty clear indication you are showing bias against a judge for his ethnicity. Not that you will ever admit that.

As you yourself stated, it was his association, not his heritage, that Trump said would tilt the scales.

So you are finally admitting that you subscribe to guilt by association? Since when has association ever been a crime? Pretty far stretch for both you and the carnival barker, Trump.

Why would a judge be associated with La Raza if not due to being sympathetic to their cause, in this case, supporting illegal immigration?

Do you have any proof, other than the Donald’s big mouth, that this judge is associated with the NCLR? Nope. Nor do you have any proof that this judge rules cases with a liberal bias. In fact, you have no proof that this judge has even been unfair to Trump when Trump’s own lead attorney said just the opposite. What you are engaging in is nothing more than cheap, petty slander.

@retire05:

When you keep harping on the fact that the judge is Hispanic, and then, you know….the wall, that is a pretty clear indication you are showing bias against a judge for his ethnicity. Not that you will ever admit that.

I’m not harping on his ethnicity; you are. I am saying it is immaterial, but his support and allegiance with La Raza and all that entails is what is troublesome. While many white people (who should know better), Curiel happens to BE Hispanic… perhaps that is WHY he supports La Raza, but his ethnicity is not the issue; his support of illegal activity by supporting illegal immigration IS.

So you are finally admitting that you subscribe to guilt by association? Since when has association ever been a crime? Pretty far stretch for both you and the carnival barker, Trump.

I would appreciate you providing a reason OTHER than supporting what La Raza supports for throwing his lot in with them? I’m coming up blank.

Do you have any proof, other than the Donald’s big mouth, that this judge is associated with the NCLR? Nope.

Well, he IS a member, so, there’s that.

@Bill:

Curiel happens to BE Hispanic… perhaps that is WHY he supports La Raza,

Where do you have any proof that he supports the NCLR? Any public statements, any legal opinions passed down from him on the bench, anything?

but his ethnicity is not the issue; his support of illegal activity by supporting illegal immigration IS.

If his ethnicity is not an issue, why did Trump even mention it? And where do you have any proof this judge supports illegal immigration? YOU HAVE NONE. Guilt by association doesn’t fly here, bubba.

But hey, if you think repeating the same tired mantra is a viable argument, then there is no hope for you.

@Bill:

Do you have any proof, other than the Donald’s big mouth, that this judge is associated with the NCLR? Nope.

Well, he IS a member, so, there’s that.

And you can prove that how?

@retire05: Shesh. How long is this going to go on? I have already posted information showing the associations. I have clearly made the case as to why anyone with a brain has witnessed liberal bias and liberal judges ruling based on bias and how, based on that, Trump is not being racist but logical to suspect this liberal judge might make a ruling based on his liberal leanings.

@Bill: If it’s just about his, perceived by you, “liberal leanings”, why is this Indiana born and bred judge’s Mexican heritage even mentioned? Why does Trump’s lawyer not have a problem with the judge?

@Bill:

Shesh. How long is this going to go on?

I guess until you tire of exposing your ignorance.

I have already posted information showing the associations.

No, you have made spurious claims that Judge who is the topic of this conversation is a member of the NCLR with absolutely no proof at all. No where on the NCLR website is his name mentioned, yet that doesn’t stop your absurd claims.

I have clearly made the case as to why anyone with a brain has witnessed liberal bias and liberal judges ruling based on bias

So what? How have you proved that this particular judge is guilty of liberal bias or has ruled on bias? You have not cited ONE case he has ruled on that proves such slander. NOT ONE.

and how, based on that, Trump is not being racist but logical to suspect this liberal judge might make a ruling based on his liberal leanings.

Look, stick your head up Trump’s arse by defending his bigotry all you want, but as for your claim of proof that Trump is right, major fail.

So toddle on back to watching your hero on Fox News until you can cite specific cases, or even ONE case, where this judge has showed liberalist rulings.

@retire05: @Richard Wheeler: I see the people blinded by hatred cannot even read posts. The point I have been making is that Trump had REASON to suspect… not that he is necessarily right or that Curiel has been biased. Trump is not being racist to believe that a liberal judge will do what liberal judges OFTEN do… allow their liberal bias to trump their commitment to judge by rule of law.

Take, for example, how liberal prosecutors acted in Texas with the Planned Parenthood baby parts market; they attacked the whistle blowing investigators instead of even looking INTO whatever violations may have been committed by Planned Parenthood. Or, the liberal judge in Stanford giving a light sentence for sexual assault to someone based on their alumni status. He has not been pulled from another sexual assault case. I suppose that is racist as well.

This is what liberals do; they lie and abuse the law. This is what Trump was saying he suspected would happen to him, a Republican candidate AGAINST illegal immigration when being judged by a liberal that SUPPORTS illegal immigration.

In fact, what is racist is a judge, sworn to uphold the law, supporting illegal immigration (which, if he supports La Raza or organizations that support La Raza he DOES) to support illegal activity because those illegal immigrants are mostly the same ethnicity as he is.