Trump cries when called out for attacking women

[playtime]

Donald Trump would do more to promote the spread of jihadist terrorism than any military victory ever could. Unleashing him as president in a world of dangerous and complex geopolitics would be akin to giving a hand grenade to a two-year-old in a crowded room. Come Election Day, the rest of us must be grown-ups.

The major issue that is our "fault" that encourages the spread of jihadist terrorism is our support of Israel.

If we would just let them destroy Israel and commit genocide on the Jewish People, the major source of conflict between our peoples would be ended.


Now, there is the little wrinkle that we might have a nuclear war in the prime oil producing region of the world, but...

Oh, and one might wonder if a successful Genocide would have a positive or negative impact on political and cultural development...


But people who worry about that type of stuff are racist.


And other types of isms.

Very bad people.

Republicans even.

"Now, there is the little wrinkle that we might have a nuclear war in the prime oil producing region of the world, but..."

but... 'what'? oh well??? that is insane.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Double Down Donald cannot logically debate a rational argument.

Says that man with a stated policy of NOT supporting his arguments and accusations.

I have, always, and you run away, then come back and deny that, and want to litigate once again what you have lost before. Correll, you with Yurt and HereWeGoAgain and SnivelingGrizz and the others never get "just once more."

Now old Double Down's spokesperson is accusing Ryan of racism.

Don't you people ever think?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Wall and the nukes were acknowledged above as Reagan accomplishments.

Anyone who says Iran Contra was not important is a stupid person. Those munitions could have been used against our service personnel and as weapons of terrorism against Iran's enemies.

RR raised taxes numerous times, increased the deficit, and the debt went up and down.

Invading Iraq was a war crime, one of which RR was not guilty.

The Marines in Beirut was a mistake. The excuse of the Mistake does not count.

 

[Correll]

Yes, better than Reagan Clinton was the highest-ranking modern President, ahead of Ronald Reagan (11th), Lyndon Johnson (12th), John Kennedy (14th) and George H.W. Bush (17th).

Right, because a great economy and winning the Cold War was nothing special.

Reagan deserve many kudos for helping bring down the berlin wall & he reduced the # of nukes on this planet. but let's not forget that he raised taxes a lot, looked the other way when saddam hussein gassed the kurds, the Marines killed in Beirut, & iran/contra.

1. Thanks for not acknowledging the Wall and the nukes.


2. The overall tax rates were way lower when he left office than when he took office.

3. Oh? You're sorry we didn't invade Iraq sooner?

4. The Marines in Beirut was a mistake. He mistakenly believed that the players in the area were reasonable and wanted peace.

5. Iran/contra was no big deal. So the Iranians had some extra weapons to kill Saddam's soldiers with.

I actually did acknowledge the wall & nukes.

DAMN IT!!!

I was distracted. I was trying to break away to go work out. THat "not", I don't know how or why that is there.

 

[Correll]

Double Down Donald cannot logically debate a rational argument.

Says that man with a stated policy of NOT supporting his arguments and accusations.

I have, always, and you run away, then come back and deny that, and want to litigate once again what you have lost before. Correll, you with Yurt and HereWeGoAgain and SnivelingGrizz and the others never get "just once more."

Now old Double Down's spokesperson is accusing Ryan of racism.

Don't you people ever think?

Incredible.


In the same sentence you claim that you DO support your arguments, AND give a list of people who you refuse to give "just once more".

Liberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.

AND another problem is that the times in the past that you claim to have supported your arguments, boiled down to , "your a racist because I say so, that's the end of it".

Liberals: All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

 

[Correll]

Donald Trump would do more to promote the spread of jihadist terrorism than any military victory ever could. Unleashing him as president in a world of dangerous and complex geopolitics would be akin to giving a hand grenade to a two-year-old in a crowded room. Come Election Day, the rest of us must be grown-ups.

The major issue that is our "fault" that encourages the spread of jihadist terrorism is our support of Israel.

If we would just let them destroy Israel and commit genocide on the Jewish People, the major source of conflict between our peoples would be ended.


Now, there is the little wrinkle that we might have a nuclear war in the prime oil producing region of the world, but...

Oh, and one might wonder if a successful Genocide would have a positive or negative impact on political and cultural development...


But people who worry about that type of stuff are racist.


And other types of isms.

Very bad people.

Republicans even.

"Now, there is the little wrinkle that we might have a nuclear war in the prime oil producing region of the world, but..."

but... 'what'? oh well??? that is insane.

Yep. That's my point.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have always supported my arguments, and I will not let road bumps like you who have been flattened in arguments relitigate the issues. Yes, you have all the intelligence of a turnip, Correll, as I have showed every day we engaged here. You have been shown time and again you are a racist, and you deny it and want to re-argue it.

No, you don't ever get "just once more" as it appears Donnie is not going to get either.

 

[playtime]

Donald Trump would do more to promote the spread of jihadist terrorism than any military victory ever could. Unleashing him as president in a world of dangerous and complex geopolitics would be akin to giving a hand grenade to a two-year-old in a crowded room. Come Election Day, the rest of us must be grown-ups.

The major issue that is our "fault" that encourages the spread of jihadist terrorism is our support of Israel.

If we would just let them destroy Israel and commit genocide on the Jewish People, the major source of conflict between our peoples would be ended.


Now, there is the little wrinkle that we might have a nuclear war in the prime oil producing region of the world, but...

Oh, and one might wonder if a successful Genocide would have a positive or negative impact on political and cultural development...


But people who worry about that type of stuff are racist.


And other types of isms.

Very bad people.

Republicans even.

"Now, there is the little wrinkle that we might have a nuclear war in the prime oil producing region of the world, but..."

but... 'what'? oh well??? that is insane.

Yep. That's my point.

trump said that nukes would not be taken off the table.

that is insane & wanting to put someone like him in office that has that mindset is insane.

 

[Faun]

I posted more than just, "of course." Of course, I am not responsible for you not reading beyond the first sentence of my post.

Trump said Mexico is sending their rapists here.... where does that article say the rapists are coming here? All it says is that some folks, presumably Mexican, are raping foreign women who are traveling through Mexico to reach the U.S.. It says nothing about the rapists coming here.

1. So, your evidence is what? Something you admit yourself was a joke?

2.a The article specified both "fellow migrants" and "traffickers" as rapists. Those two groups come across the border, as per Trump's now proven statement.

2b YOUR ALTERNATIVE that you seem to be pushing, is that a random group of women travelling though Mexico will be raped to the tune of 80%. Your scenario would be painting a very bad picture for ALL OF MEXICO AND MEXICANS.

Which would just be another way of saying Trump was right. Except for being overly generous to Mexico and Mexicans.

BUT that's YOUR scenario, not mine, not TRumps.

The joke was that Trump would shoot someone. Not that he would lose voters over it.

The rapes are occurring in Mexico because the law their does little to nothing to crack down on foreigners cutting through their country to reach the U.S. The article doesn't say if, or how many, come into the U.S.. And the number of illegals caught committing rape in the U.S. don't support Trump's comment.

1. So, your argument or reasoning is what then?

2. The rapes are occurring in Mexico and during the border crossing. And fellow migrants and the trafficers are listed as major percentages of the rapes, OF THE INSANELY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF RAPES. and those people enter the US.

3. Again, if it is NOT the males coming into the US, then you are painting an appalling picture of Mexico and ALL mexican men. Which again just supports Trump's statement even more.

4. The number of illegals caught don't reflect that? That's an interesting claim. I've researched illegal crime stats, and found that mostly they are very poorly tracked, thus good numbers are not to be found. I'd found some reports and articles suggesting that it is pretty bad, others that claim that it is not. Would you like to share what you found that leads you to say NOT?

To think you can shoot someone and not lose support means the supporters are stupid enough to continue supporting a candidate who shoots someone.

So, you yourself described it as a joke, but you are judging Trump as though he was serious?

You see where I am going with this?

Again, because you didn't quite catch on the first time ... the joke was that Trump could kill someone, not that his acolytes would drop him if he were to do so. I certainly never thought he was serious about killing anyone.

As far as rape in Mexico, the article does not specify any percentages as to whom the culprits are.

It listed them, that strongly implies they are a significant percentage of the problem.

It also listed gangs, bandits and Mexican officials. As far as "fellow migrants," the women being raped are, for the most part, not Mexican. They're from other parts of Central America trekking through Mexico to the U.S.. Since they're not Mexican, their "fellow migrants" would also not necessarily be Mexican. "Traffickers" may or may not cross the border. The article also stated that much of the sexual abuse is actually women paying men with sex to help them get to the U.S. Your problem with that article is that it's a) too vague in regards to the nationality of the rapists; and b) not clear if they're coming into the U.S.. While I have no doubt some do cross the border, it does not paint Mexicans who illegally cross the border as rapists in any justifiable sense to call Mexicans who are here illegally, "rapists." Even more so when looking at the number of illegal aliens here caught committing rape.

It also lists gang members and even officials.

Hence, I did not claim that fellow migrants and trafficers committed all the rapes. If fellow migrants raped 20% of the women travelling with them, that's a problem right there.

Great, now prove "fellow migrants" translates to "Mexican migrants"...

... It also doesn't specify the nationality of the "other migrants," many of whom like the girl migrants being raped, might be foreigners.

I don't see why this is relevant. THe issues is the rapists. It doesn't matter whether the male in question rapes an El Salvadorian, or a Panamanian, he is still a rapist.

It matters because Trump called most Mexicans who come here illegally, rapists. He singled out Mexico. He said nothing about El Salvador, Panama, or any other Central American country.

It doesn't say if any of those Mexicsns are coming into America.

The illegals who are coming here are drawn from the population of Mexico. If Mexico is such a hellhole that any group of women passing though will be raped to the tune of 80% by the Mexican Men along the way, that means that the Mexican males who enter here contain a high percentage of rapists, or potential rapists.

Which is what Trump said. Which means that your argument, if correct, just supports Trump even more so.

You're lying again. The article doesn't identify all of the rapists as Mexican, though I would guess most are. It's also complete bullshit to extrapolate Mexicans coming in here are a "high percentage of rapists or potential rapists." It could be a relatively small number of men committing these rapes for all you know. And you still have no idea if many of them even come into the U.S.

That article does not support Trump's claim. The number of Mexicans in the U.S. illegally who are caught committing rape does not support his claim.

But I do like how you try to dismiss the latter figure because the numbers are poorly tracked; while you promote the former numbers even though they are even more poorly tracked.

Nice double standard you employ just so you can suck up to Trump.

What former numbers? The numbers from the article? Those are completely different numbers, collected in completely different circumstances by completely different people.

Of course they are different. And a big difference is that the latter numbers are more complete and reliable than the former. The latter numbers being collected by the DOJ and GAO; whereas

Are you challenging Amnesty International's numbers or methods, or credibility?

Neither. I'm challenging your ability to read that article coherently and extrapolate what it actually states in regards to Mexican rapists coming into the U.S. -- which is, it doesn't offer any numbers or percentages whatsoever. Yet here you are thinking it does. Hell, you don't even know who you're citing. It is Fusion, not Amnesty International, who said 80% of women crossing Mexico to the U.S. are getting raped. Amnesty International performed an independent study 7 years ago and concluded about 60% of them get raped.

And the reason you do? One reason really -- to defend Trump's asinine comment about Mexicans coming here being rapists. There's nothing to support his bigotry.

 

[Faun]

Very little Double Down Donald says supports his assertions.

Says the man that has a stated policy of NOT supporting his accusations or claims.

And the lesson here is that lying and fear mongering works.


Congratulations lefty.

Are you suggesting that's not working for Trump?

 

[Correll]

1. So, your evidence is what? Something you admit yourself was a joke?

2.a The article specified both "fellow migrants" and "traffickers" as rapists. Those two groups come across the border, as per Trump's now proven statement.

2b YOUR ALTERNATIVE that you seem to be pushing, is that a random group of women travelling though Mexico will be raped to the tune of 80%. Your scenario would be painting a very bad picture for ALL OF MEXICO AND MEXICANS.

Which would just be another way of saying Trump was right. Except for being overly generous to Mexico and Mexicans.

BUT that's YOUR scenario, not mine, not TRumps.

The joke was that Trump would shoot someone. Not that he would lose voters over it.

The rapes are occurring in Mexico because the law their does little to nothing to crack down on foreigners cutting through their country to reach the U.S. The article doesn't say if, or how many, come into the U.S.. And the number of illegals caught committing rape in the U.S. don't support Trump's comment.

1. So, your argument or reasoning is what then?

2. The rapes are occurring in Mexico and during the border crossing. And fellow migrants and the trafficers are listed as major percentages of the rapes, OF THE INSANELY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF RAPES. and those people enter the US.

3. Again, if it is NOT the males coming into the US, then you are painting an appalling picture of Mexico and ALL mexican men. Which again just supports Trump's statement even more.

4. The number of illegals caught don't reflect that? That's an interesting claim. I've researched illegal crime stats, and found that mostly they are very poorly tracked, thus good numbers are not to be found. I'd found some reports and articles suggesting that it is pretty bad, others that claim that it is not. Would you like to share what you found that leads you to say NOT?

To think you can shoot someone and not lose support means the supporters are stupid enough to continue supporting a candidate who shoots someone.

So, you yourself described it as a joke, but you are judging Trump as though he was serious?

You see where I am going with this?

Again, because you didn't quite catch on the first time ... the joke was that Trump could kill someone, not that his acolytes would drop him if he were to do so. I certainly never thought he was serious about killing anyone.

As far as rape in Mexico, the article does not specify any percentages as to whom the culprits are.

It listed them, that strongly implies they are a significant percentage of the problem.

It also listed gangs, bandits and Mexican officials. As far as "fellow migrants," the women being raped are, for the most part, not Mexican. They're from other parts of Central America trekking through Mexico to the U.S.. Since they're not Mexican, their "fellow migrants" would also not necessarily be Mexican. "Traffickers" may or may not cross the border. The article also stated that much of the sexual abuse is actually women paying men with sex to help them get to the U.S. Your problem with that article is that it's a) too vague in regards to the nationality of the rapists; and b) not clear if they're coming into the U.S.. While I have no doubt some do cross the border, it does not paint Mexicans who illegally cross the border as rapists in any justifiable sense to call Mexicans who are here illegally, "rapists." Even more so when looking at the number of illegal aliens here caught committing rape.

It also lists gang members and even officials.

Hence, I did not claim that fellow migrants and trafficers committed all the rapes. If fellow migrants raped 20% of the women travelling with them, that's a problem right there.

Great, now prove "fellow migrants" translates to "Mexican migrants"...

... It also doesn't specify the nationality of the "other migrants," many of whom like the girl migrants being raped, might be foreigners.

I don't see why this is relevant. THe issues is the rapists. It doesn't matter whether the male in question rapes an El Salvadorian, or a Panamanian, he is still a rapist.

It matters because Trump called most Mexicans who come here illegally, rapists. He singled out Mexico. He said nothing about El Salvador, Panama, or any other Central American country.

It doesn't say if any of those Mexicsns are coming into America.

The illegals who are coming here are drawn from the population of Mexico. If Mexico is such a hellhole that any group of women passing though will be raped to the tune of 80% by the Mexican Men along the way, that means that the Mexican males who enter here contain a high percentage of rapists, or potential rapists.

Which is what Trump said. Which means that your argument, if correct, just supports Trump even more so.

You're lying again. The article doesn't identify all of the rapists as Mexican, though I would guess most are. It's also complete bullshit to extrapolate Mexicans coming in here are a "high percentage of rapists or potential rapists." It could be a relatively small number of men committing these rapes for all you know. And you still have no idea if many of them even come into the U.S.

That article does not support Trump's claim. The number of Mexicans in the U.S. illegally who are caught committing rape does not support his claim.

But I do like how you try to dismiss the latter figure because the numbers are poorly tracked; while you promote the former numbers even though they are even more poorly tracked.

Nice double standard you employ just so you can suck up to Trump.

What former numbers? The numbers from the article? Those are completely different numbers, collected in completely different circumstances by completely different people.

Of course they are different. And a big difference is that the latter numbers are more complete and reliable than the former. The latter numbers being collected by the DOJ and GAO; whereas

Are you challenging Amnesty International's numbers or methods, or credibility?

Neither. I'm challenging your ability to read that article coherently and extrapolate what it actually states in regards to Mexican rapists coming into the U.S. -- which is, it doesn't offer any numbers or percentages whatsoever. Yet here you are thinking it does. Hell, you don't even know who you're citing. It is Fusion, not Amnesty International, who said 80% of women crossing Mexico to the U.S. are getting raped. Amnesty International performed an independent study 7 years ago and concluded about 60% of them get raped.

And the reason you do? One reason really -- to defend Trump's asinine comment about Mexicans coming here being rapists. There's nothing to support his bigotry.

1. So, you assume he was joking about shooting someone, but serious about not losing support? That seems a self serving assumption on your part. I take it that he was joking about both. As it was a JOKE.

2. And I'm sure the bandits, gangs, and officials are also significant parts of the problem. It's a big problem, obviously, and nothing we want to import into this country.

3. As the majority of people coming over the border are Mexicans it is reasonable to refer to them loosely as Mexicans. I don't want Mexican or other rapists coming into the country. Seal the fucking border!

4. Everything I have seen is that numbers on illegals committing crime in the US is very poorly tracked.

5. THe article addressed that the new numbers are higher. Problems can grow over time. As the women in question are travelling THOUGH Mexico and joining up with a flow of people composed mostly OF Mexicans, "extrapolating" that the rapists are mostly Mexican seems reasonable to me.

6. "Bigotry"? LOL! It is not bigotry to not want to import a rapist heavy population into the country.

 

[sealybobo]

The joke was that Trump would shoot someone. Not that he would lose voters over it.

The rapes are occurring in Mexico because the law their does little to nothing to crack down on foreigners cutting through their country to reach the U.S. The article doesn't say if, or how many, come into the U.S.. And the number of illegals caught committing rape in the U.S. don't support Trump's comment.

1. So, your argument or reasoning is what then?

2. The rapes are occurring in Mexico and during the border crossing. And fellow migrants and the trafficers are listed as major percentages of the rapes, OF THE INSANELY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF RAPES. and those people enter the US.

3. Again, if it is NOT the males coming into the US, then you are painting an appalling picture of Mexico and ALL mexican men. Which again just supports Trump's statement even more.

4. The number of illegals caught don't reflect that? That's an interesting claim. I've researched illegal crime stats, and found that mostly they are very poorly tracked, thus good numbers are not to be found. I'd found some reports and articles suggesting that it is pretty bad, others that claim that it is not. Would you like to share what you found that leads you to say NOT?

To think you can shoot someone and not lose support means the supporters are stupid enough to continue supporting a candidate who shoots someone.

So, you yourself described it as a joke, but you are judging Trump as though he was serious?

You see where I am going with this?

Again, because you didn't quite catch on the first time ... the joke was that Trump could kill someone, not that his acolytes would drop him if he were to do so. I certainly never thought he was serious about killing anyone.

As far as rape in Mexico, the article does not specify any percentages as to whom the culprits are.

It listed them, that strongly implies they are a significant percentage of the problem.

It also listed gangs, bandits and Mexican officials. As far as "fellow migrants," the women being raped are, for the most part, not Mexican. They're from other parts of Central America trekking through Mexico to the U.S.. Since they're not Mexican, their "fellow migrants" would also not necessarily be Mexican. "Traffickers" may or may not cross the border. The article also stated that much of the sexual abuse is actually women paying men with sex to help them get to the U.S. Your problem with that article is that it's a) too vague in regards to the nationality of the rapists; and b) not clear if they're coming into the U.S.. While I have no doubt some do cross the border, it does not paint Mexicans who illegally cross the border as rapists in any justifiable sense to call Mexicans who are here illegally, "rapists." Even more so when looking at the number of illegal aliens here caught committing rape.

It also lists gang members and even officials.

Hence, I did not claim that fellow migrants and trafficers committed all the rapes. If fellow migrants raped 20% of the women travelling with them, that's a problem right there.

Great, now prove "fellow migrants" translates to "Mexican migrants"...

... It also doesn't specify the nationality of the "other migrants," many of whom like the girl migrants being raped, might be foreigners.

I don't see why this is relevant. THe issues is the rapists. It doesn't matter whether the male in question rapes an El Salvadorian, or a Panamanian, he is still a rapist.

It matters because Trump called most Mexicans who come here illegally, rapists. He singled out Mexico. He said nothing about El Salvador, Panama, or any other Central American country.

It doesn't say if any of those Mexicsns are coming into America.

The illegals who are coming here are drawn from the population of Mexico. If Mexico is such a hellhole that any group of women passing though will be raped to the tune of 80% by the Mexican Men along the way, that means that the Mexican males who enter here contain a high percentage of rapists, or potential rapists.

Which is what Trump said. Which means that your argument, if correct, just supports Trump even more so.

You're lying again. The article doesn't identify all of the rapists as Mexican, though I would guess most are. It's also complete bullshit to extrapolate Mexicans coming in here are a "high percentage of rapists or potential rapists." It could be a relatively small number of men committing these rapes for all you know. And you still have no idea if many of them even come into the U.S.

That article does not support Trump's claim. The number of Mexicans in the U.S. illegally who are caught committing rape does not support his claim.

But I do like how you try to dismiss the latter figure because the numbers are poorly tracked; while you promote the former numbers even though they are even more poorly tracked.

Nice double standard you employ just so you can suck up to Trump.

What former numbers? The numbers from the article? Those are completely different numbers, collected in completely different circumstances by completely different people.

Of course they are different. And a big difference is that the latter numbers are more complete and reliable than the former. The latter numbers being collected by the DOJ and GAO; whereas

Are you challenging Amnesty International's numbers or methods, or credibility?

Neither. I'm challenging your ability to read that article coherently and extrapolate what it actually states in regards to Mexican rapists coming into the U.S. -- which is, it doesn't offer any numbers or percentages whatsoever. Yet here you are thinking it does. Hell, you don't even know who you're citing. It is Fusion, not Amnesty International, who said 80% of women crossing Mexico to the U.S. are getting raped. Amnesty International performed an independent study 7 years ago and concluded about 60% of them get raped.

And the reason you do? One reason really -- to defend Trump's asinine comment about Mexicans coming here being rapists. There's nothing to support his bigotry.

1. So, you assume he was joking about shooting someone, but serious about not losing support? That seems a self serving assumption on your part. I take it that he was joking about both. As it was a JOKE.

2. And I'm sure the bandits, gangs, and officials are also significant parts of the problem. It's a big problem, obviously, and nothing we want to import into this country.

3. As the majority of people coming over the border are Mexicans it is reasonable to refer to them loosely as Mexicans. I don't want Mexican or other rapists coming into the country. Seal the fucking border!

4. Everything I have seen is that numbers on illegals committing crime in the US is very poorly tracked.

5. THe article addressed that the new numbers are higher. Problems can grow over time. As the women in question are travelling THOUGH Mexico and joining up with a flow of people composed mostly OF Mexicans, "extrapolating" that the rapists are mostly Mexican seems reasonable to me.

6. "Bigotry"? LOL! It is not bigotry to not want to import a rapist heavy population into the country.

Yea but to suggest a Mexican American judge from indiana can't be fair? Trump is a cartoon character from family guy

 

[Correll]

1. So, your argument or reasoning is what then?

2. The rapes are occurring in Mexico and during the border crossing. And fellow migrants and the trafficers are listed as major percentages of the rapes, OF THE INSANELY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF RAPES. and those people enter the US.

3. Again, if it is NOT the males coming into the US, then you are painting an appalling picture of Mexico and ALL mexican men. Which again just supports Trump's statement even more.

4. The number of illegals caught don't reflect that? That's an interesting claim. I've researched illegal crime stats, and found that mostly they are very poorly tracked, thus good numbers are not to be found. I'd found some reports and articles suggesting that it is pretty bad, others that claim that it is not. Would you like to share what you found that leads you to say NOT?

To think you can shoot someone and not lose support means the supporters are stupid enough to continue supporting a candidate who shoots someone.

So, you yourself described it as a joke, but you are judging Trump as though he was serious?

You see where I am going with this?

Again, because you didn't quite catch on the first time ... the joke was that Trump could kill someone, not that his acolytes would drop him if he were to do so. I certainly never thought he was serious about killing anyone.

As far as rape in Mexico, the article does not specify any percentages as to whom the culprits are.

It listed them, that strongly implies they are a significant percentage of the problem.

It also listed gangs, bandits and Mexican officials. As far as "fellow migrants," the women being raped are, for the most part, not Mexican. They're from other parts of Central America trekking through Mexico to the U.S.. Since they're not Mexican, their "fellow migrants" would also not necessarily be Mexican. "Traffickers" may or may not cross the border. The article also stated that much of the sexual abuse is actually women paying men with sex to help them get to the U.S. Your problem with that article is that it's a) too vague in regards to the nationality of the rapists; and b) not clear if they're coming into the U.S.. While I have no doubt some do cross the border, it does not paint Mexicans who illegally cross the border as rapists in any justifiable sense to call Mexicans who are here illegally, "rapists." Even more so when looking at the number of illegal aliens here caught committing rape.

It also lists gang members and even officials.

Hence, I did not claim that fellow migrants and trafficers committed all the rapes. If fellow migrants raped 20% of the women travelling with them, that's a problem right there.

Great, now prove "fellow migrants" translates to "Mexican migrants"...

... It also doesn't specify the nationality of the "other migrants," many of whom like the girl migrants being raped, might be foreigners.

I don't see why this is relevant. THe issues is the rapists. It doesn't matter whether the male in question rapes an El Salvadorian, or a Panamanian, he is still a rapist.

It matters because Trump called most Mexicans who come here illegally, rapists. He singled out Mexico. He said nothing about El Salvador, Panama, or any other Central American country.

It doesn't say if any of those Mexicsns are coming into America.

The illegals who are coming here are drawn from the population of Mexico. If Mexico is such a hellhole that any group of women passing though will be raped to the tune of 80% by the Mexican Men along the way, that means that the Mexican males who enter here contain a high percentage of rapists, or potential rapists.

Which is what Trump said. Which means that your argument, if correct, just supports Trump even more so.

You're lying again. The article doesn't identify all of the rapists as Mexican, though I would guess most are. It's also complete bullshit to extrapolate Mexicans coming in here are a "high percentage of rapists or potential rapists." It could be a relatively small number of men committing these rapes for all you know. And you still have no idea if many of them even come into the U.S.

That article does not support Trump's claim. The number of Mexicans in the U.S. illegally who are caught committing rape does not support his claim.

But I do like how you try to dismiss the latter figure because the numbers are poorly tracked; while you promote the former numbers even though they are even more poorly tracked.

Nice double standard you employ just so you can suck up to Trump.

What former numbers? The numbers from the article? Those are completely different numbers, collected in completely different circumstances by completely different people.

Of course they are different. And a big difference is that the latter numbers are more complete and reliable than the former. The latter numbers being collected by the DOJ and GAO; whereas

Are you challenging Amnesty International's numbers or methods, or credibility?

Neither. I'm challenging your ability to read that article coherently and extrapolate what it actually states in regards to Mexican rapists coming into the U.S. -- which is, it doesn't offer any numbers or percentages whatsoever. Yet here you are thinking it does. Hell, you don't even know who you're citing. It is Fusion, not Amnesty International, who said 80% of women crossing Mexico to the U.S. are getting raped. Amnesty International performed an independent study 7 years ago and concluded about 60% of them get raped.

And the reason you do? One reason really -- to defend Trump's asinine comment about Mexicans coming here being rapists. There's nothing to support his bigotry.

1. So, you assume he was joking about shooting someone, but serious about not losing support? That seems a self serving assumption on your part. I take it that he was joking about both. As it was a JOKE.

2. And I'm sure the bandits, gangs, and officials are also significant parts of the problem. It's a big problem, obviously, and nothing we want to import into this country.

3. As the majority of people coming over the border are Mexicans it is reasonable to refer to them loosely as Mexicans. I don't want Mexican or other rapists coming into the country. Seal the fucking border!

4. Everything I have seen is that numbers on illegals committing crime in the US is very poorly tracked.

5. THe article addressed that the new numbers are higher. Problems can grow over time. As the women in question are travelling THOUGH Mexico and joining up with a flow of people composed mostly OF Mexicans, "extrapolating" that the rapists are mostly Mexican seems reasonable to me.

6. "Bigotry"? LOL! It is not bigotry to not want to import a rapist heavy population into the country.

Yea but to suggest a Mexican American judge from indiana can't be fair? Trump is a cartoon character from family guy

Did he suggest that ALL Mexican Judges can't be fair? Or just THIS judge? I know he specified that this judge is a member of a La Raza lawyers group.


Do you believe that ALL Mexican-American Judges are fair and impartial?

After all, you lefties are CONSTANTLY claiming that various White people, CAN'T or ARE NOT "impartial" or "fair" to various individuals and/or minority groups.

 

[playtime]

To think you can shoot someone and not lose support means the supporters are stupid enough to continue supporting a candidate who shoots someone.

So, you yourself described it as a joke, but you are judging Trump as though he was serious?

You see where I am going with this?

Again, because you didn't quite catch on the first time ... the joke was that Trump could kill someone, not that his acolytes would drop him if he were to do so. I certainly never thought he was serious about killing anyone.

As far as rape in Mexico, the article does not specify any percentages as to whom the culprits are.

It listed them, that strongly implies they are a significant percentage of the problem.

It also listed gangs, bandits and Mexican officials. As far as "fellow migrants," the women being raped are, for the most part, not Mexican. They're from other parts of Central America trekking through Mexico to the U.S.. Since they're not Mexican, their "fellow migrants" would also not necessarily be Mexican. "Traffickers" may or may not cross the border. The article also stated that much of the sexual abuse is actually women paying men with sex to help them get to the U.S. Your problem with that article is that it's a) too vague in regards to the nationality of the rapists; and b) not clear if they're coming into the U.S.. While I have no doubt some do cross the border, it does not paint Mexicans who illegally cross the border as rapists in any justifiable sense to call Mexicans who are here illegally, "rapists." Even more so when looking at the number of illegal aliens here caught committing rape.

It also lists gang members and even officials.

Hence, I did not claim that fellow migrants and trafficers committed all the rapes. If fellow migrants raped 20% of the women travelling with them, that's a problem right there.

Great, now prove "fellow migrants" translates to "Mexican migrants"...

... It also doesn't specify the nationality of the "other migrants," many of whom like the girl migrants being raped, might be foreigners.

I don't see why this is relevant. THe issues is the rapists. It doesn't matter whether the male in question rapes an El Salvadorian, or a Panamanian, he is still a rapist.

It matters because Trump called most Mexicans who come here illegally, rapists. He singled out Mexico. He said nothing about El Salvador, Panama, or any other Central American country.

It doesn't say if any of those Mexicsns are coming into America.

The illegals who are coming here are drawn from the population of Mexico. If Mexico is such a hellhole that any group of women passing though will be raped to the tune of 80% by the Mexican Men along the way, that means that the Mexican males who enter here contain a high percentage of rapists, or potential rapists.

Which is what Trump said. Which means that your argument, if correct, just supports Trump even more so.

You're lying again. The article doesn't identify all of the rapists as Mexican, though I would guess most are. It's also complete bullshit to extrapolate Mexicans coming in here are a "high percentage of rapists or potential rapists." It could be a relatively small number of men committing these rapes for all you know. And you still have no idea if many of them even come into the U.S.

That article does not support Trump's claim. The number of Mexicans in the U.S. illegally who are caught committing rape does not support his claim.

But I do like how you try to dismiss the latter figure because the numbers are poorly tracked; while you promote the former numbers even though they are even more poorly tracked.

Nice double standard you employ just so you can suck up to Trump.

What former numbers? The numbers from the article? Those are completely different numbers, collected in completely different circumstances by completely different people.

Of course they are different. And a big difference is that the latter numbers are more complete and reliable than the former. The latter numbers being collected by the DOJ and GAO; whereas

Are you challenging Amnesty International's numbers or methods, or credibility?

Neither. I'm challenging your ability to read that article coherently and extrapolate what it actually states in regards to Mexican rapists coming into the U.S. -- which is, it doesn't offer any numbers or percentages whatsoever. Yet here you are thinking it does. Hell, you don't even know who you're citing. It is Fusion, not Amnesty International, who said 80% of women crossing Mexico to the U.S. are getting raped. Amnesty International performed an independent study 7 years ago and concluded about 60% of them get raped.

And the reason you do? One reason really -- to defend Trump's asinine comment about Mexicans coming here being rapists. There's nothing to support his bigotry.

1. So, you assume he was joking about shooting someone, but serious about not losing support? That seems a self serving assumption on your part. I take it that he was joking about both. As it was a JOKE.

2. And I'm sure the bandits, gangs, and officials are also significant parts of the problem. It's a big problem, obviously, and nothing we want to import into this country.

3. As the majority of people coming over the border are Mexicans it is reasonable to refer to them loosely as Mexicans. I don't want Mexican or other rapists coming into the country. Seal the fucking border!

4. Everything I have seen is that numbers on illegals committing crime in the US is very poorly tracked.

5. THe article addressed that the new numbers are higher. Problems can grow over time. As the women in question are travelling THOUGH Mexico and joining up with a flow of people composed mostly OF Mexicans, "extrapolating" that the rapists are mostly Mexican seems reasonable to me.

6. "Bigotry"? LOL! It is not bigotry to not want to import a rapist heavy population into the country.

Yea but to suggest a Mexican American judge from indiana can't be fair? Trump is a cartoon character from family guy

Did he suggest that ALL Mexican Judges can't be fair? Or just THIS judge? I know he specified that this judge is a member of a La Raza lawyers group.


Do you believe that ALL Mexican-American Judges are fair and impartial?

After all, you lefties are CONSTANTLY claiming that various White people, CAN'T or ARE NOT "impartial" or "fair" to various individuals and/or minority groups.

what he did was 'specify' that THIS judge was a member of an organization with the words 'La Raza' in its name, & tying that membership to being 'pro Mexican'.... that is a lie.

but of course - the poorly educated - is what trump is counting on to remain lazy & ignorant of true facts because its easier to manipulate them that way. it literally took me seconds to find the factual truth.



Trump wrongly casts California lawyers group as strongly pro-Mexican
By Jon Greenberg on Tuesday, June 7th, 2016 at 1:14 p.m.

Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump says U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel is "not treating me fairly."

Curiel ruled that the public can see internal papers from the now defunct Trump University. Trump’s critics and reporters have pounced on the documents. They’ve pointed to examples of a calculated effort to target people who could ill-afford expensive training sessions and had little chance of profiting from them.

But for Trump, the bad press stems from a bad legal decision that has more to do with his immigration policies than the merits of a lawsuit. He said it is "just common sense" that Curiel’s ties to Mexico explain his ruling. Curiel, born and raised in Indiana, had parents who were naturalized U.S. citizens from Mexico.

CBS News host John Dickerson pressed Trump as to what his parents had to do with him not ruling in Trump’s favor.

"He is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine," Trump said on Face the Nation on June 5. "But I say, he's got bias. I want to build a wall."

It’s a serious matter to accuse federal judges of bias solely because of their ethnic background, and top-ranking Republicans have rejected Trump’s line.

Our interest though is strictly in this club that Trump referenced. Is it actually "strongly pro-Mexican" as he said?

We reached out to the Trump campaign for details and did not hear back.

The group in question is the California La Raza Lawyers Association. It dates back to 1977. The group’s immediate past president, Joel Murillo, told us that it was formed in response to stereotyping coming from judges and lawyers.

"There were judges on the bench saying people with Spanish surnames were prone to be savages," Murillo said. "When we tried to integrate with the mainstream bar association, we were denied. We were marginalized. The only people who were willing to work with us were us."

Murillo says the days of stereotyping are over, and the group now focuses on the professional development of Latino lawyers and encouraging students to pursue a career in law. He called Trump’s description of the association as very strongly pro-Mexican a "misnomer." Murillo said most of the group’s recent work targets improving the quality of education for all students in California.

The group has not been involved in the immigration debate.

"The closest was when there were beatings by police and others that offended the constitutional rights of people," Murillo said. "We made suggestions of ways to ameliorate attacks on people with Spanish surnames."

Our search of the Nexis newspaper database found an episode in 2004 when the association wrote a letter calling for the cancellation of a popular Los Angeles reality television show in which illegal immigrants competed for the free services of an immigration lawyer to apply for a green card.

The show "functions as a magnet to encourage people to enter this country without documentation," the letter said.

The group’s bylaws state, "The purpose and goal of this association is to promote the interests of the Latino communities throughout the state and the professional interests of the membership." That membership is now about half Latino, Murillo said, and in terms of party affiliation, "the lawyers who belong pretty much reflect the population." California is about 43 percent Democratic, 28 percent Republican and about 24 percent undeclared.

Murillo also noted that strictly speaking, the group is focused on the Latino community, a term that is much broader than people with family roots in Mexico.

The association’s website, last updated in 2013, describes a judicial committee that "seeks to increase the number of Latinos appointed to judgeships."

Kevin Johnson, dean of the University of California Davis School of Law, told us the association is "seen as a pretty moderate group" that’s mainly focused on civil rights.

On the legal front, we found the group filed a 2012 friend of the court brief in support of Sergio Garcia, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico seeking admission to the State Bar of California. But the issue was broader than simple Hispanic solidarity. That brief was co-written by the Asian/Pacific Bar Association of Sacramento.

In 2002, the San Francisco chapter joined with nine other organizations to support an appeal on the grounds that racism tainted the jury selection process. The defendant, Stanley Williams, did not have a Spanish surname, and the other organizations included the NAACP, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Los Angeles, the Asian Law Caucus and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

We asked Johnson if including "La Raza" in the group’s name carried a special meaning. He said the term is "sort of a product of its times" that emerged from the Chicano civil rights movement of the 1960s.

"The founders and presidents have not been remarkable, in a political sense," Johnson said.

The group is often confused with the National Council of La Raza, an advocacy group often criticized by conservatives. Aside from a similarity in their names, the only tie we found was a link to the National Council of La Raza on the lawyers association website. But that list of links also includes the National Latino Police Officers Association and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

The conservative website Redstate posted an op-ed rebuking Trump’s use of the California lawyers group as proof of Judge Curiel’s political motives. The writer, Leon Wolf, called the effort to disparage the association "dishonest."

"As far as I can tell, they appear to be a pretty garden variety special interest lawyers association," Wolf wrote. "Every state has these chapters for Hispanic lawyers, black lawyers, women lawyers, Mormon lawyers, Christian lawyers, Jewish lawyers -- you name it, there is a lawyer association for it in every state."

Our ruling

Trump said Curiel belonged to a group that is very strongly pro-Mexican. The California La Raza Lawyers Association does advance the interests of the Latino legal community and works on issues that matter in Latino communities more broadly.

However, it has stayed on the sidelines in the immigration debate. The one exception is one letter from a dozen years ago which objected to a television show on the grounds that the program encouraged people to enter the country without documentation. The group’s rare court filings focus on civil rights in general.

Trump’s statement is accurate only in the sense that the association’s mission aims to support Latinos, but even that is flawed because he said the group was pro-Mexican and the Latino designation reaches a wider set of people. The claim ignores critical facts that would give a very different impression.

We rate this assertion Mostly False.

Trump misses in attack on Trump U judge