CDZ Why is "Mexican" a "Racist" Term?

[Correll]

...and....for all you know, this judge could be a Trump supporter....No Joke: Trump Can Win Plenty of Latinos

Among the small subset of hispanic gop voters.

But you raise a valid point. A small percentage of hispanics do support Trump.

The odds are far more likely that this judge has a preconceived and highly negative opinion of Trump.

 

[Correll]

no, what?

Do Hispanics NOT hate Trump?

Is the Judge NOT hispanic?

Should a Judge that HATES the defendant NOT recluse himself?

Does Trump NOT have a right to a fair and impartial trial?

All rhetorical questions. I know you will not answer any of them.

You can't without admitting that I am right, or looking like a fool.

How would you apply that to Asclepias' Pedo example?

Judges, generally do NOT hate pedophiles.

Judges thus could and do give pedophiles fair and impartial trials.

ON the other hand, if a judge had a child that was molested by a specific pedophile, that Judge would hate that particular pedophile and should recluse himself from any trial of that particular pedophile.


For that pedophile has a RIght to a Fair and Impartial Trial.

Right, but likewise - JUST because a judge had a hispanic background - does not mean he can't be impartial on a case involving a university - there is nothing that indicates he dislikes Trump personally - no remarks, no actions, no exchanges *unlike your pedophile-judge-child example*.

Oh? There isn't?

The Left and many on the RIght have been saying that HIspanics HATE Trump.

Do you believe that?

Its like the example i used before and Corral ignored. Most judges hate pedos but they make sure they get a fair trial.

Ya, it's a weak excuse isn't it?

It does seem Trump supporters will excuse anything and everything Trump does.

Saying it is a weak excuse does not make it a weak excuse.

To support that claim, you have to point out the flaw in my reasoning.

So, anytime now...

Your entire argument is built on a faulty premise: that a judge can't be impartial in absence of direct evidence to the contrary, such as remarks, actions, or involvement in some aspect of the case that create a conflict of interest. In this case ethnic heritage alone is insufficient given the complete absence of any other factor.

Do you think the judge has heard about Trump before this case?

Is that sufficient evidence to force a recusal? If so, there's going to be severe shortages of judges around the country.

Why did you not answer the question? It was obviously a leading question. It was not going to be the end of the conversation.

DId you really believe that my comeback would be, if he heard of him, that it?

 

[Correll]

no, what?

Do Hispanics NOT hate Trump?

Is the Judge NOT hispanic?

Should a Judge that HATES the defendant NOT recluse himself?

Does Trump NOT have a right to a fair and impartial trial?

All rhetorical questions. I know you will not answer any of them.

You can't without admitting that I am right, or looking like a fool.

How would you apply that to Asclepias' Pedo example?

Judges, generally do NOT hate pedophiles.

Judges thus could and do give pedophiles fair and impartial trials.

ON the other hand, if a judge had a child that was molested by a specific pedophile, that Judge would hate that particular pedophile and should recluse himself from any trial of that particular pedophile.


For that pedophile has a RIght to a Fair and Impartial Trial.

Right, but likewise - JUST because a judge had a hispanic background - does not mean he can't be impartial on a case involving a university - there is nothing that indicates he dislikes Trump personally - no remarks, no actions, no exchanges *unlike your pedophile-judge-child example*.

Oh? There isn't?

The Left and many on the RIght have been saying that HIspanics HATE Trump.

Do you believe that?

I'm looking for actual evidence - not nebulous broad brush claims. Evidence would be that the judge said or did something to indicate he had a personal bias against Trump. What have you got?

Trials get moved on less than that.

IF the jury pool is tainted by publicity for example.

 

[Correll]

How would you apply that to Asclepias' Pedo example?

Judges, generally do NOT hate pedophiles.

Judges thus could and do give pedophiles fair and impartial trials.

ON the other hand, if a judge had a child that was molested by a specific pedophile, that Judge would hate that particular pedophile and should recluse himself from any trial of that particular pedophile.


For that pedophile has a RIght to a Fair and Impartial Trial.

Right, but likewise - JUST because a judge had a hispanic background - does not mean he can't be impartial on a case involving a university - there is nothing that indicates he dislikes Trump personally - no remarks, no actions, no exchanges *unlike your pedophile-judge-child example*.

Oh? There isn't?

The Left and many on the RIght have been saying that HIspanics HATE Trump.

Do you believe that?

I'm looking for actual evidence - not nebulous broad brush claims. Evidence would be that the judge said or did something to indicate he had a personal bias against Trump. What have you got?

Corral is on his end game. All you will get from him is deflections and more logical fallacies.

Says the king of logical fallacies.

If coyote is willing to discuss this seriously and honestly, I'll will return that respect.

 

[Asclepias]

Judges, generally do NOT hate pedophiles.

Judges thus could and do give pedophiles fair and impartial trials.

ON the other hand, if a judge had a child that was molested by a specific pedophile, that Judge would hate that particular pedophile and should recluse himself from any trial of that particular pedophile.


For that pedophile has a RIght to a Fair and Impartial Trial.

Right, but likewise - JUST because a judge had a hispanic background - does not mean he can't be impartial on a case involving a university - there is nothing that indicates he dislikes Trump personally - no remarks, no actions, no exchanges *unlike your pedophile-judge-child example*.

Oh? There isn't?

The Left and many on the RIght have been saying that HIspanics HATE Trump.

Do you believe that?

I'm looking for actual evidence - not nebulous broad brush claims. Evidence would be that the judge said or did something to indicate he had a personal bias against Trump. What have you got?

Corral is on his end game. All you will get from him is deflections and more logical fallacies.

Says the king of logical fallacies.

If coyote is willing to discuss this seriously and honestly, I'll will return that respect.

Youre being disrespectful by claiming to be serious. You still havent any proof the judge hates Trump. Until you establish that as a fact you dont even have a point.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Yep, he sure did. I just listened and watched him say the judge is Mexican. Go to the 1 minute mark of the video. He says the judge happens to be Mexican. Sorry, it is what it is.

That is exactly my point: He did not refer to the judge's race or ethnicity (Hispanic), but to his affiliation with Mexico. Read it again.

Wow. That's quite a stretch.

I wonder if this be Drumpf's next lie.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yea, I am confused that there is any ambiguity here.

I've said all along that the RWs would twist themselves into pretzels to support thus man, who is arguably the worst candidate in our history.

Depressing is that after he loses, his fans will still be here.

The lowest common denominator of our country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I really don't see the GOP falling in lockstep behind him. Seems to me they are swallowing hard and wishing he would shut his mouth. His supporters are the extremely pissed off GOPers who ant stand the leadership. It's a cluster fuck created by the GOP.

What the GOP and RWNJd are saying is that he should lie. They want to pretend to be honest, pretend he doesn't plan to screw over the working class and create a fascist feudal state and pretend that he's not a racist.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Correll]

That is exactly my point: He did not refer to the judge's race or ethnicity (Hispanic), but to his affiliation with Mexico. Read it again.

Wow. That's quite a stretch.

I wonder if this be Drumpf's next lie.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yea, I am confused that there is any ambiguity here.

I've said all along that the RWs would twist themselves into pretzels to support thus man, who is arguably the worst candidate in our history.

Depressing is that after he loses, his fans will still be here.

The lowest common denominator of our country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I really don't see the GOP falling in lockstep behind him. Seems to me they are swallowing hard and wishing he would shut his mouth. His supporters are the extremely pissed off GOPers who ant stand the leadership. It's a cluster fuck created by the GOP.

What the GOP and RWNJd are saying is that he should lie. They want to pretend to be honest, pretend he doesn't plan to screw over the working class and create a fascist feudal state and pretend that he's not a racist.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Deporting illegals and bringing back manufacturing jobs is not screwing the working class, it's serving their interests for the first time in generations.

 

[Coyote]

...and....for all you know, this judge could be a Trump supporter....No Joke: Trump Can Win Plenty of Latinos

Among the small subset of hispanic gop voters.

But you raise a valid point. A small percentage of hispanics do support Trump.

The odds are far more likely that this judge has a preconceived and highly negative opinion of Trump.

The odds are that since he is a judge with a good record, he does not let personal opinions affect his rulings (like a judge ruling on a pedo case).

 

[Coyote]

How would you apply that to Asclepias' Pedo example?

Judges, generally do NOT hate pedophiles.

Judges thus could and do give pedophiles fair and impartial trials.

ON the other hand, if a judge had a child that was molested by a specific pedophile, that Judge would hate that particular pedophile and should recluse himself from any trial of that particular pedophile.


For that pedophile has a RIght to a Fair and Impartial Trial.

Right, but likewise - JUST because a judge had a hispanic background - does not mean he can't be impartial on a case involving a university - there is nothing that indicates he dislikes Trump personally - no remarks, no actions, no exchanges *unlike your pedophile-judge-child example*.

Oh? There isn't?

The Left and many on the RIght have been saying that HIspanics HATE Trump.

Do you believe that?

Ya, it's a weak excuse isn't it?

It does seem Trump supporters will excuse anything and everything Trump does.

Saying it is a weak excuse does not make it a weak excuse.

To support that claim, you have to point out the flaw in my reasoning.

So, anytime now...

Your entire argument is built on a faulty premise: that a judge can't be impartial in absence of direct evidence to the contrary, such as remarks, actions, or involvement in some aspect of the case that create a conflict of interest. In this case ethnic heritage alone is insufficient given the complete absence of any other factor.

Do you think the judge has heard about Trump before this case?

Is that sufficient evidence to force a recusal? If so, there's going to be severe shortages of judges around the country.

Why did you not answer the question? It was obviously a leading question. It was not going to be the end of the conversation.

I did answer it. The entire nation has heard of Trump. Now, answer my question - is that sufficient reason for a recusal?

DId you really believe that my comeback would be, if he heard of him, that it?

 

[Coyote]

Judges, generally do NOT hate pedophiles.

Judges thus could and do give pedophiles fair and impartial trials.

ON the other hand, if a judge had a child that was molested by a specific pedophile, that Judge would hate that particular pedophile and should recluse himself from any trial of that particular pedophile.


For that pedophile has a RIght to a Fair and Impartial Trial.

Right, but likewise - JUST because a judge had a hispanic background - does not mean he can't be impartial on a case involving a university - there is nothing that indicates he dislikes Trump personally - no remarks, no actions, no exchanges *unlike your pedophile-judge-child example*.

Oh? There isn't?

The Left and many on the RIght have been saying that HIspanics HATE Trump.

Do you believe that?

I'm looking for actual evidence - not nebulous broad brush claims. Evidence would be that the judge said or did something to indicate he had a personal bias against Trump. What have you got?

Corral is on his end game. All you will get from him is deflections and more logical fallacies.

Says the king of logical fallacies.

If coyote is willing to discuss this seriously and honestly, I'll will return that respect.

I've been discussing this seriously. I'm looking for real evidence of a conflict of interest and none has been provided.

 

[Coyote]

How would you apply that to Asclepias' Pedo example?

Judges, generally do NOT hate pedophiles.

Judges thus could and do give pedophiles fair and impartial trials.

ON the other hand, if a judge had a child that was molested by a specific pedophile, that Judge would hate that particular pedophile and should recluse himself from any trial of that particular pedophile.


For that pedophile has a RIght to a Fair and Impartial Trial.

Right, but likewise - JUST because a judge had a hispanic background - does not mean he can't be impartial on a case involving a university - there is nothing that indicates he dislikes Trump personally - no remarks, no actions, no exchanges *unlike your pedophile-judge-child example*.

Oh? There isn't?

The Left and many on the RIght have been saying that HIspanics HATE Trump.

Do you believe that?

I'm looking for actual evidence - not nebulous broad brush claims. Evidence would be that the judge said or did something to indicate he had a personal bias against Trump. What have you got?

Trials get moved on less than that.

IF the jury pool is tainted by publicity for example.

Judges and juries are two different animals.

 

[Coyote]

Right, but likewise - JUST because a judge had a hispanic background - does not mean he can't be impartial on a case involving a university - there is nothing that indicates he dislikes Trump personally - no remarks, no actions, no exchanges *unlike your pedophile-judge-child example*.

Oh? There isn't?

The Left and many on the RIght have been saying that HIspanics HATE Trump.

Do you believe that?

I'm looking for actual evidence - not nebulous broad brush claims. Evidence would be that the judge said or did something to indicate he had a personal bias against Trump. What have you got?

Corral is on his end game. All you will get from him is deflections and more logical fallacies.

Says the king of logical fallacies.

If coyote is willing to discuss this seriously and honestly, I'll will return that respect.

Youre being disrespectful by claiming to be serious. You still havent any proof the judge hates Trump. Until you establish that as a fact you dont even have a point.

That's exactly it. Everything at the moment is conjecture.

 

[Correll]

...and....for all you know, this judge could be a Trump supporter....No Joke: Trump Can Win Plenty of Latinos

Among the small subset of hispanic gop voters.

But you raise a valid point. A small percentage of hispanics do support Trump.

The odds are far more likely that this judge has a preconceived and highly negative opinion of Trump.

The odds are that since he is a judge with a good record, he does not let personal opinions affect his rulings (like a judge ruling on a pedo case).

I don't know that.

I've seen a lot of lefty judges making decisions to let leftys go fishing for anything that can be used to smear Republicans.

Remember Jack Ryan? Some asshole judge unsealed his divorce case records, without any concern for the interests of the children, so that not credible divorce testimony could be used to sideline the man that was likely to defeat Obama.

 

[Correll]

Judges, generally do NOT hate pedophiles.

Judges thus could and do give pedophiles fair and impartial trials.

ON the other hand, if a judge had a child that was molested by a specific pedophile, that Judge would hate that particular pedophile and should recluse himself from any trial of that particular pedophile.


For that pedophile has a RIght to a Fair and Impartial Trial.

Right, but likewise - JUST because a judge had a hispanic background - does not mean he can't be impartial on a case involving a university - there is nothing that indicates he dislikes Trump personally - no remarks, no actions, no exchanges *unlike your pedophile-judge-child example*.

Oh? There isn't?

The Left and many on the RIght have been saying that HIspanics HATE Trump.

Do you believe that?

Saying it is a weak excuse does not make it a weak excuse.

To support that claim, you have to point out the flaw in my reasoning.

So, anytime now...

Your entire argument is built on a faulty premise: that a judge can't be impartial in absence of direct evidence to the contrary, such as remarks, actions, or involvement in some aspect of the case that create a conflict of interest. In this case ethnic heritage alone is insufficient given the complete absence of any other factor.

Do you think the judge has heard about Trump before this case?

Is that sufficient evidence to force a recusal? If so, there's going to be severe shortages of judges around the country.

Why did you not answer the question? It was obviously a leading question. It was not going to be the end of the conversation.

I did answer it. The entire nation has heard of Trump. Now, answer my question - is that sufficient reason for a recusal?

DId you really believe that my comeback would be, if he heard of him, that it?

If the judge has developed a preconceived opinion of Trump, so that Trump is unlikely to receive a Fair and Impartial Trial, then yes.

 

[Coyote]

...and....for all you know, this judge could be a Trump supporter....No Joke: Trump Can Win Plenty of Latinos

Among the small subset of hispanic gop voters.

But you raise a valid point. A small percentage of hispanics do support Trump.

The odds are far more likely that this judge has a preconceived and highly negative opinion of Trump.

The odds are that since he is a judge with a good record, he does not let personal opinions affect his rulings (like a judge ruling on a pedo case).

I don't know that.

I've seen a lot of lefty judges making decisions to let leftys go fishing for anything that can be used to smear Republicans.

Remember Jack Ryan? Some asshole judge unsealed his divorce case records, without any concern for the interests of the children, so that not credible divorce testimony could be used to sideline the man that was likely to defeat Obama.

And you don't know this either: "The odds are far more likely that this judge has a preconceived and highly negative opinion of Trump."

The thing is - you can only go by the judges record and statements.

 

[Correll]

Right, but likewise - JUST because a judge had a hispanic background - does not mean he can't be impartial on a case involving a university - there is nothing that indicates he dislikes Trump personally - no remarks, no actions, no exchanges *unlike your pedophile-judge-child example*.

Oh? There isn't?

The Left and many on the RIght have been saying that HIspanics HATE Trump.

Do you believe that?

I'm looking for actual evidence - not nebulous broad brush claims. Evidence would be that the judge said or did something to indicate he had a personal bias against Trump. What have you got?

Corral is on his end game. All you will get from him is deflections and more logical fallacies.

Says the king of logical fallacies.

If coyote is willing to discuss this seriously and honestly, I'll will return that respect.

I've been discussing this seriously. I'm looking for real evidence of a conflict of interest and none has been provided.

The left has never done that when the situation was reversed.

Why the sudden change?

 

[Moonglow]

According to the thought police, Donald Trump's reference to a judge being "Mexican" is a "racist" statement. I can't think of another country to which this would apply. Can you?

It seems to me that, in the context of the questionable lawsuit against Trump University, this reference has much more to do with the Judge's affiliation with La Raza, a political organization which actively circumvents U.S. immigration law. Given Trump's high profile political stance to the contrary, does not the Judge have a potential conflict of interest? Why should this be considered a "racist" issue?

P.S. Please look up "ad hominem" before responding.

First off, who said it was racist???

 

[Asclepias]

Right, but likewise - JUST because a judge had a hispanic background - does not mean he can't be impartial on a case involving a university - there is nothing that indicates he dislikes Trump personally - no remarks, no actions, no exchanges *unlike your pedophile-judge-child example*.

Oh? There isn't?

The Left and many on the RIght have been saying that HIspanics HATE Trump.

Do you believe that?

Your entire argument is built on a faulty premise: that a judge can't be impartial in absence of direct evidence to the contrary, such as remarks, actions, or involvement in some aspect of the case that create a conflict of interest. In this case ethnic heritage alone is insufficient given the complete absence of any other factor.

Do you think the judge has heard about Trump before this case?

Is that sufficient evidence to force a recusal? If so, there's going to be severe shortages of judges around the country.

Why did you not answer the question? It was obviously a leading question. It was not going to be the end of the conversation.

I did answer it. The entire nation has heard of Trump. Now, answer my question - is that sufficient reason for a recusal?

DId you really believe that my comeback would be, if he heard of him, that it?

If the judge has developed a preconceived opinion of Trump, so that Trump is unlikely to receive a Fair and Impartial Trial, then yes.

If a cow had nuts it would be a bull. What is your point with all of this conjecture?

 

[Correll]

Judges, generally do NOT hate pedophiles.

Judges thus could and do give pedophiles fair and impartial trials.

ON the other hand, if a judge had a child that was molested by a specific pedophile, that Judge would hate that particular pedophile and should recluse himself from any trial of that particular pedophile.


For that pedophile has a RIght to a Fair and Impartial Trial.

Right, but likewise - JUST because a judge had a hispanic background - does not mean he can't be impartial on a case involving a university - there is nothing that indicates he dislikes Trump personally - no remarks, no actions, no exchanges *unlike your pedophile-judge-child example*.

Oh? There isn't?

The Left and many on the RIght have been saying that HIspanics HATE Trump.

Do you believe that?

I'm looking for actual evidence - not nebulous broad brush claims. Evidence would be that the judge said or did something to indicate he had a personal bias against Trump. What have you got?

Trials get moved on less than that.

IF the jury pool is tainted by publicity for example.

Judges and juries are two different animals.

THe similarity is that both violate the defendant's Right to a Fair and Impartial Trial.

 

[Moonglow]

Oh? There isn't?

The Left and many on the RIght have been saying that HIspanics HATE Trump.

Do you believe that?

I'm looking for actual evidence - not nebulous broad brush claims. Evidence would be that the judge said or did something to indicate he had a personal bias against Trump. What have you got?

Corral is on his end game. All you will get from him is deflections and more logical fallacies.

Says the king of logical fallacies.

If coyote is willing to discuss this seriously and honestly, I'll will return that respect.

I've been discussing this seriously. I'm looking for real evidence of a conflict of interest and none has been provided.

The left has never done that when the situation was reversed.

Why the sudden change?

...