Within an hour of Barack Obama's endorsement of Hillary Clinton, his spokesman acknowledged that she faces a 'criminal investigation'

:rotf2:

Exactly
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Undercutting someone's ethnicity like he did is racism by any contemporary measure. Trying to deny or explain it away is just as bad. This is why the GOP has hit a wall...

Coulter's article, as usual, is full of errors anyway.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...migrant-group/

He didn't "undercut" it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What is your ethnic background ? Irish? German? Italian ? Let me know so I can formulate a Trump comeback as to why I'd never hire you. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=spence;1102118]I love it, defending racism with more racism.[/QUOTE
We live in a bizarro world , where one is accused of racism when they point out another's racism .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=buckman;1102164]And where was that particular judges racism apparant, that Trump could point out?

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;1102165]In his rulings , according to the defendant in the case
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;1102165]The judge had to be racist because he's a Mexican and Trump is losing the case...

Not remotely racist. Crass, naturally, but not remotely racist. Trump wasn't saying anything about anybody, except this one judge.

Spence, you want actual racism? Guess who said THIS about the role that gender and ethnicity play, in determining the ability of a judge to render a legal opinion....

"a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

THAT QUOTE, is patently racist. That person is explicitly saying that one's gender and ethnicity make a female Latina, somehow superior to a white male, in terms of their ability to render legal opinions.

Sonia Sotomayor said that. You go ahead and tell me how that's not racist. The nutjob who said that, will be on the Supreme Court for 40 years. That's just swell.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...sus-white-men/

Jim - you are wrong. The professional academics (not STEMs for the most part) and social justice industry have determined that statements like that are completely acceptable, encouraged even, unless you are white, particularly if male, and certainly if not progressive.

So while it can successfully be argued that he has said things that can be construed as racist (doesn't mean he is or not - I think the only practical Trump "ist" is narcissist ) anything he says will be considered racist simply because the defenders of social justice have deemed who is a racist, who cannot be, and who is judge.

Sticks and stoned might break my bones, but words will never hurt me, unless I am labeled persona non grata by the SJW crowd.

We are doomed.

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;1102165]If the judge is, in fact, a member of La Raza (a group that think Latinos are ethnically superior to everyone else on Earth), Trump has a legitimate argument.

Our esteemed Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor is a proud member of La Raza. "La Raza" literally means, "the race". Not "a" race. Not "one race among money". But "the" race.

Albert Gonzalez is a Mexican American who was the US Attorney General. He wrote an article saying that while Trump used offensive language as always, that Trump might have a valid beef.

Let me ask you...what did Trump say in regards to this case, that's racist? Did he say "those wetbacks all stick together"? All I heard (and I may well be wrong on the facts as I try not to pay attention when Trump talks) is Trump bash this one guy. I didn't hear any broad statements about Mexicans, although I believe he said that somehow, the guy is not a real American. If Trump is saying that naturally born citizens of Mexican heritage are not real Americans, that would be racist.

If Sonia Sotomayor can say Latina women are ethically superior to white men (and that's EXACTLY what she said) and be qualified to be on SCOTUS, why is Trump held to a different standard?

You, and Spence, have fun answering that one.

For the record, neither one is qualified for the jobs they sought. They are both idiots. One is a confirmed, admitted racist...the other may be.

You are almost correct, but not quite. Some non-whites, like Clarence Thomas, are fair game for these racist attacks. As we all remember, during his confirmation, all those racially sensitive liberals played the dirtiest racist card there is, and suggested that Thomas (as a black man) could not be trusted around women. How progressive and tolerant.

where was the concern for the female victims of sexual predation, when Bill Clinton was using a young girls internal organs as an ashtray for his cigar?

These people have no shame. None.

"We are doomed"

Yep.

The Washington Post, as usual, is full of itself and its bias. Its article is full of "Latino, Hispanic, and Mexican" organizations which they claim are not "radical," whatever they mean by that, but which advance the interests of documented "Latinos, Hispanics, and Mexicans" in this country, and the entrance of undocumented ones into it. Ethnic and racial groups, societies, organizations unquestionably are biased. It is the nature of exclusive societies to be biased for their own. If one does not have such a bias, what is the point of belonging to a group rather than simply being a member of the society at large. Justice Sotomayor wasn't bashful in stating her Latina bias.

It is not unreasonable for Trump to fear a bias against him because of his position on illegal immigrants and his claim that he will build a wall between Mexico and the U.S.

And such ethnic an racial groups tend, if their bias is strong enough, to create division rather than diversity. The "contemporary" NAACP is an example. And the Democrat Party has used racial and ethnic biases to expand their power base. It has welcomed the division as a tool and encouraged as well as supported massive numbers of immigrants, legal and illegal, to strengthen that divisive source of power. And left leaning media such as the Post are biased toward Progressive policy and so gloss over and make to seem perfectly innocent and harmless various organizations that divide us rather than unite us.

The Democrat "race" card BS is a tactic, and Trump is throwing the lefts various tactics back at them. The left keeps accusing him of doing what they do. He is returning the favor and acting as they do with a brash in-your-face demeanor. That's why so many people voted for Trump. They're tired of being marginalized by linguistic trickery and unwarranted name calling.

The left has distorted language so that even the word "fair" is now meaningless. Certainly, "racism" has become a powerful word to make the weak-kneed Republicans that people are tiring of cower and acquiesce to all manner of Constitution busting Democrat policies.

It was a leftist, Orwell, who exposed the deception of politically distorted words, but the left, rather than observing the evil outcome of such distortion, rather saw how to successfully apply it.

And Coulter's article was not "full" of errors. It was full of accurate instances of the left doing what it accuses Trump of.

He isn't.

She was a member at one time. It's astounding to think a successful latino would want to help others.

That's basically what he said. Trump's insinuation was that his heritage would compromise his ability to uphold the law. The fact that he in a quite snide and conspiratorial manner charged him as being a Mexican when he's a natural born American just made things worse.

From what I've read so far the Trump U thing was a total scam. Making a racist remark to lash out at a judge to cover your own quite likely criminal activity...it just keeps going down hill.
That's not what she said. Perhaps you should read your own link.

I did.

Spence -

"He isn't (a member of La Raza)."
Well pardon me if I don't take your brainwashed word for it. It may well be that he was never a member. Again, the former US Attorney General, who also happens to be of Mexican heritage, thought Trump might have had a legitimate beef. Perhaps he knows almost as much about this, as someone who never questions anything a liberal says or does.

"From what I've read so far the Trump U thing was a total scam"

I'm sure you are reading balanced sources. I fit was a scam, he should be held accountable. How about that controversial for-profit "school" that benefitted the Clintons so much? Bill made a fortune from that school, and the CEO made donations to the Clinton foundation, and around and around we go...You probably read that school is awesome.

"That's not what she said. Perhaps you should read your own link"

You really are hopeless, aren't you. She said that by virtue of being a Latina and a woman, she would be ethnically and sexually predisposed to render superior legal opinions, than a white man.

How about one god damn time, instead of lobbing a vague insult and scurrying off with your tail between your legs, you tell me exactly the difference between what she said, and what I claimed she said.

How is asking you to read your own link an insult? And why do you need to constantly be telling yourself you think you're somehow winning an argument?

I thought Mexicans loved Trump for all the jobs he's created? He should have nothing to fear. Perhaps he can point one out at his next rally just to put the issue to bed.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/10/ju...he-boy-scouts/


Judge Curiel is also a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. La Raza is no stranger to politics, protests, and community agitation. They played a prominent role in the protests and riots in March at a Donald Trump rally in Chicago. This is the same La Raza that is strongly pro-illegal immigration. In other words, encouraging breaking the law.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/10/ju...#ixzz4BC6tG2hZ

You're confusing different organizations.

Well, for starters, you are implying that I didn't read it. Here it is, an exact quote...it's not very complex or ambiguous.

"a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

She is saying that the experience of being a white man, somehow leaves one less qualified to render quality legal opinions, than one who is Latina and female (all other things being equal, I suppose).

It's racist. It's sexist. And it's absurdly stupid. I know it's stupid, because I don't see white, male, Georgetown Law School graduates risking their lives to float on rafts to emigrate to Latino nations, in search of "that life", which according to this dolt, would instantly make them superior jurists.

Had you read it you would likely have had an understanding of her intent.

Oh, I see! We should ignore what people actually say, and focus on their likely intent! And who determines the intent of what everyone says? Liberals!!

Let's re-state your handiwork on this post, in terms of gauging "intent".

"Trump's insinuation was that his heritage would compromise his ability to uphold the law"

So even though Trump never explicitly said as much, you are able to determine that his insinuation, or "intent" was racist. His statement isn't racist. But you are able to conclude that his intent is racist.

Sotomayor, on the other hand, comes right out and says that in terms of judicial ability female Latinas are superior to white males. That is textbook racism. Fortunately for her, you can see past that to her "intent", which even though you chose not to share it, was certainly something worthy of a Nobel Prize.

In other words, according to you, (1) conservatives are racist even when they are not, and (2) liberals aren't racist, even when they are.

Cue the 'Twilight Zone' music...

You still haven't read your own link have you...

She also belonged to a group called, in Spanish, "The Race". Again, they don't call themselves "A" Race or, "One Race Of Many". No, no, they are "the" race.

Racism

1
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2
: racial prejudice or discrimination

I bounce trumps comments against the definition in Miriam Webster and it doesn't pass the smell test....he maybe a crass a-hole

Now I bounce Sotamayors comments against it and.....if it walks like a duck.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, in that link, the quote is what we KNOW she said. The rest of the link, was the self-serving liberal spin, from a liberal drone, telling me why she didn't mean what she said. If I used another link, written by Glenn Beck, explaining why that quote makes her unfit for night court let alone SCOTUS, would you buy into that?

We all know what she said. Try to spin it any way you want. Those words aren't open to a lot of different interpretations. I chose a liberal link, because if I chose The Blaze, you might have claimed they were making it up.

Well, that's not really true either. It also means the people or the community.

"The phrase "La Raza" is actually truncated from "La Raza Cósmica," a phrase coined by politician and philosopher José Vasconcelos (also a former secretary of education and 1929 presidential candidate in Mexico) to describe the ideology that the mixture of ethnicities in the New World ushered in a new era of humanity characterized by love and inclusivity."

I do believe it was adopted frequently this century to promote Latino civil rights. But to assume the use of the word "la" indicates superiority...shows you really don't understand how to address a feminine noun.

From the link...

"The purpose of the speech, she said, was to "talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench."

Spence, if she said "I believe my experience as a Latina female gives me a good foundation upon which to judge fairly", NO ONE would have a problem with that. That's not what she said. She didn't just celebrate her own heritage. She said, with no abiguity, that her heritage (and gender) are superior to that of a white man.

If she made that same exact statement during questioning for jury duty, she would be rightly excluded. She's unfit to serve on a jury, but there she is on SCOTUS. Thanks to your hero.

http://www.spanishcentral.com/translate/raza

"I do believe it The Klan was adopted frequently this century to promote Latino white civil rights"

See what I did there?

How about we stop talking about things that don't matter (race and gender), and we judge people by what they actually say and do? why is that beyond the grasp of liberals? Answer - because what liberals say and do is indefensible (let's let Willie Horton use the girls room if he claims to identify as such), demonstrably false (if we tweak taxes on the 1%, we can balance our budget), and in some cases (abortion), practically Satanic.

You should read Jim's link as well. He's having a terrible time understanding that words can have different meaning when used in different contexts.

"a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

OK, let's make this simple. I read that quote, and I conclude that she thinks that female Latinas, are superior to white men (in terms of rendering legal conclusions).

What other meaning can there possibly be, to that quote?

Again, instead of insulting me, tell me where I am wrong, please?

Read your own link Jim. Are you like afraid?

I read one Kool Aid drinking jerk's explanation. I don't know why he, or you, know how she meant something other than what was said. You have no alternative explanation, but Lord knows you cannot criticize her, so we'll leave it at that.

that's it...release your inner Trump!

Spence, here is what the author said...

"it (her speech)amounted to little more than Sotomayor acknowledging that judges, like anyone, are products of where and how they grew up. "

That's pure bullsh*t. She didn't just say that she is the product of her heritage. She said that her heritage produces a superior jurist than a white man's heritage. Those are 2 very different things to say.

(1) I am white, therefore I am superior to blacks.
(2) I am white, and therefore I have a life experience that contributes to who I am.

Spence, you see no distinction between those 2 statements? They are the same to you? Because that's exactly how the author explains what she said. It's ridiculous.

Everything was going well until you spouted this stupidity. Did your children steal your password Jeff, wife perhaps?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why would it be racist, Jim? Is "real American" a race? Is "Mexican" a race? Would saying something that has nothing to do with race be racist?

There are white Mexicans. There are black Mexicans. There are yellow Mexicans. There are red Mexicans. And there are mixtures of these type of Mexicans. The U.S. also has white, black, yellow, and red Americans, and mixtures of those types. So if Mexican and American are races, are they the same race? It would seem so. The same can be said of all North and South American countries and Most European countries. Apparently, if the name of those countries is a race, the members of those countries must all belong to the same race. One might generalize and call it the human race

If you say something negative about someone who is of the same race as you, would that be racist?

On the other hand, if by race we mean human groups with common genetic markers which meaningfully differentiate from those genetic markers of other human groups, then the name of countries used as racial types is ridiculous. And, indeed in that case, a given American can be a racist in regard to another American.

And, as well, a given Mexican can be a racist in regard to another Mexican. And, indeed, in the social hierarchy of Mexico, there is a preference for whiteness and a racial discrimination against "the other," as per Wikipedia: "An important phenomenon described for some parts of Latin America such as Brazil and Mexico is "Whitening" or "Mestizaje" describing the policy of planned racial mixing with the purpose of minimizing the non-white part of the population." Mexicans can be quite racist, even, and especially, toward other Mexicans and Latin Americans. It is a Mexican policy not to allow "undocumented" immigrants to stay in Mexico. That was egregiously demonstrated when they wouldn't let the famous thousands of unaccompanied children from Honduras and Guatemala who crossed into Mexico stay there, but put them on trains to the U.S. border, dropping them there to enter this country. And that action was strongly supported by all those innocent Latino and Mexican organizations such as those in the Washington Post article that Spence posted. And those "non-political" organizations did not criticize Mexico for not helping the unaccompanied Latino children. Nor did they demand that Mexico should even take its "share." But they helped facilitate the immigration of those children into this country. And they condemned Americans who objected to keeping the children which in turn would necessitate bringing in the parents and families of those thousands of children who would all then be destined for citizenship. No, of course not . . . those various Mexican and Latino organizations had no ulterior racial or ethnic motivation in "helping" those children and their families, nor in helping all the other millions of their "race" (actually ethnicity) do well in this country. Even if it would be at the expense of other Americans. And, certainly, no one belonging to any of those apolitical, beneficent, non-discriminatory, organizations would have any bias against someone like Trump who says he wants to BUILD A FRIGGING WALL between Mexico and the U.S. And who has said things about some of their fellow ethnics which they have strongly condemned.

Anyway, Trump did not refer to a race. He referred to an ethnicity, and an ethnic heritage, in which a member of it might well be biased against him because of his statements regarding that ethnicity--NOT REGARDING ANY "RACE."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, appointed Curiel in 2006 to the state superior court, where he spent six years before ascending to the federal court.
Schwarzenegger affirmed his support for Curiel on Monday tweeting: "Judge Curiel is an American hero who stood up to the Mexican cartels. I was proud to appoint him when I was Gov."

Trump Defender Representative Duncan Hunter

What I like to do is take these arguments out to there logical extremes. So let’s say that Chris Kyle, the American sniper, is still alive and he was on trial for something, and his judge was a Muslim-American of Iraqi descent. Here you have Chris Kyle, who’s killed a whole bunch of bad guys in Iraq. Would that be a fair trial for Chris Kyle? If you had that judge there? Probably not. And Chris Kyle could probably say, “this guy’s not gonna like me.”

from the author.. Moreover, Sotomayor’s point rather plainly was that ethnic minorities who enter the legal profession—intelligent people with diversity of experience—will have a wider range of understanding than their more cloistered peers, and that will aide their judgment. It was not to say that white judges, by virtue of their whiteness, are incapable of standing in judgment of certain minorities impartially.

newrepublic.com/article/134110/annotated-guide-republicans-defenses-trumps-mexican-judge-comments

this seem to following the same old pattern