Justify his concern that the judge would be unfair. Justify the judge not deciding the case.
This is what emboldened white supremacists look like
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
he's a plaintiff in a court case
that justifies all sorts of concerns, in my opinion
including whether his case will be heard unbiasedly
kmonkey said:
i don't agree that the judge should necessarily be removed
Sure, if I was in his position I might have the same concern. Luckily I'm not running a shady university. :idunno:
:up:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Yes. According to them, 'their' stoning is okay, it's just the other guy's that isn't.
They're constrained by our secular laws, or who knows what the vigilantes would do if they had the chance.
Maybe I'm not, or maybe you didn't.
Yes or no questions would take two cans to sort.
A minute? I haven't seen my game in 15 years. I just ask questions, then more questions.
Thanks for those answers.
So two "of Courses" equals an Isn't?
That's your opinion and that's fine, you're entitled to it, and Trump is entitled to his.
I think you're going to be hard pressed to find something that impacts Mexicans harder than a Presidential Candidate who's running on a platform of deporting 6 million of them.
You can try.
Absolutely not. The Judge might have been "extra fair" to Trump for fear of being seen as political.
BUT
Maybe not.
Show me them supporting the wall and mass deportations Trump style. Without that your false equivalence not only won't fly, it won't even taxi.
Trump made his case. "He's Mexican (Heritage) and I'm building a Wall."
Sure he could have elaborated more, I don't know that quote was supposed to be a perfect definitive encapsulation of the matter and I don't know that Trump could fashion on in a single sentence if that was his aim.
He did issue a statement clarifying his position which cited Muriel's associations. That should settle the matter of what he meant unless the mind readers want to give us their two cents.
Correct, But as Town will tell you Setting Out The Larger Context is important. Curiel could do damage to Trump during the Campaign. And the stakes could not be higher.
Probably should have.
Well get off your duff and get to it!
I'm fairly sure you are and I'm dead certain that I did.
Yes or no tends to be misleading in any number of contexts. It works fine for, "Does that dog bite?" though.
Those weren't my answers. Those were cherry picked parts of my answers.
That's on you for cutting them out of the context. The explanation wasn't veiled.
That's misleading too. This doesn't reduce to a subjective, "Who could know?"
Anyone suggesting a bias that impacts impartiality has to make the case. Assuming the case doesn't put them on equal footing with people who aren't willing to give it credence short of the case being made.
And if La Raza was dedicated to Mexican interests you'd really be making a point. But they aren't. In fact, you could reasonably argue their position in relation to that game show's impact infers their interest is with legal populations of Latinos in their area, which makes sense given they're a Bar association.
Maybe isn't something, it's wondering if there's something. No inherent conflict of interest in a maybe and no reason to recuse.
Saying a thing is a false equivalence doesn't make it one. I can say you're a wedge of cheese, but it doesn't make you one of those either.
Heritage wasn't in his quote. It was a later amend when enough people pointed out the error. But let's say he meant to air quote on the designation. So because Curiel's parents are naturalized citizens he can't be fair on a matter that impacts that country? A country you were quick enough to point out wasn't a racial distinction when it suited you. Your guy tacked on a bit more. He said the judge was a member of a pro Mexican group. Wrong group. Politifact weighed in on that one. Here's the link. Ultimately, when you look through various quotes by him on the point, over time, it's fairly clear that he got rulings he didn't like then decided to blame it on the judge's heritage.
The Politifact article looks at a number of different occasions when he's been asked about it and spoken to the point.
Curiel. Gonzalo Curiel. I've noted the confusion on La Raza and his error (being charitable) on the point.
The National Review thinks he's seeing things (link). I suspect he's just being Trump. Trump hates to lose and has an ego that insists an inarguable loss can't be fair, because he knows more, can do more, is more, etc.
Is that kathy griffith in drag?
Just setting in a buffer against the photos that literally have nothing to do with white supremacy. Well, nothing to do with it directly, at any rate.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Thanks. Apparently he decided since I was going to meet his stoning photos with his coreligionists' quotes supporting stoning that he'd switch to a different kind of execution porn.
He's got a lot of hate that seeks an outlet.
The racists here don't like to see their views put out in plain sight. They want to couch it in other terms, cover it with some platitude or other. It's disturbing, because their level of hate seems to be ramped up. And they've made no secret that they want opposing voices gone from here so they can continue to foment and stew in their hate without anyone slowing them down.
“Kessler is representative of what hate looks like today, operating at the center of several movements that have arisen over the last few years,” said Oren Segal, Director of the ADL’s Center on Extremism. “He clearly sympathizes with white supremacists, but like many on the alt-right seeks to deflect such notions by presenting his words and activity as a mere response to multiculturalism and an assault from the left.”
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
and the cbc still isn't identifying the three moosies in london as "islamic" or "muslim" :nono:
