Poll:who would you vote for right now

[BugI02]

Both Trump and the judge, like all of us, possess biases. However, Trump is the only one who is making his known to the world, but you can only acknowledge those that may exist with the judge? It doesn't matter if Trump's case isn't going how he wants. He is contending to be the President of the United States and he attacks a U.S. citizen by saying he's afraid of the wall he's building? This is a man who was born here and worked his butt off to achieve his goals and Trump has the audacity to frame his judicial and legal acumen on the fact that he's of Mexican descent. If that's the case, maybe, just maybe, Trump is doing the same thing as a White man with his rhetoric to "Make America Great Again!" Could this be?

Que, it just seems that there is cognitive dissonance here. If judges in general, and judge Curiel in particular, are models of objectivity and are not swayed by their beliefs but only the law; then any worry that the next president will appoint left leaning, biased judges for SCOTUS and the federal bench is specious. There is nothing to worry about because questioning a judge's impartiality is demeaning and unnecessary.

But you and I both know that this is not the case. Judges are selected by the party in power, and resisted by the party in opposition, specifically because both sides believe they are biased to rule in a certain way on what are considered important issues. Once you grant that judges are selected because they are expected to be reliably biased toward (or against) a certain viewpoint, then I do not see why any judge cannot be called to account for their actions and rulings in the courtroom

I will grant that Trump U is not nearly an important or resonant enough issue that one would expect a judge to have strong opinions either way, but the argument is whether he could have a strong enough animosity to the man to color his rulings in the case. I think that is well within the realm of possibility

I don't know what goes on in the mind of Trump so it could be he really thinks no 'Mexican' could give him a fair trial, but I doubt it. If I had to guess I would conclude Trump either seeks to push the judge to perhaps rule more favorably to him in the future, or more likely he has already concluded he will lose this round and is setting the stage to appeal

I do find it difficult to accept that you cannot see a potential for real bias here, though. Would you find it equally hard to believe a white judge of a southern circuit could be biased against a black defendant or perhaps that a Christian Identity or white supremacist adherent might seriously question the impartiality of a black judge if he were on trial? Especially if the white judge had ties to white power group or the black judge had similar ties to racial identity politics (as Curiel seems to have ties to La Raza along with the bankroll behind the lawsuit)

I expect some pushback from you on this because by sketching the simple picture of 'southern white' or 'black' judge I have abstracted real people tremendously and stereotyped them. The motivations of 'southern white' or 'black' would be complex and subtle and make it much harder to predict how they might affect their impartiality but I've simplified the case to try to get to an agreement that judges are manifestly not saints and can indeed be biased. Once we get there I see no reason why Trump couldn't question this particular judges impartiality to him (Trump)

I've linked this before, but please give it a once over
Donald Trump Is Correct To Hit ?La Raza? Judge For Latino Identity Politics - Breitbart ( yes I know a Breitbart cite will raise some hackles C'est la vie )

"Judge Curiel’s integrity is not being questioned by Trump just because of his Hispanic heritage. Trump is merely asserting that a person’s heritage does not foreclose a proper inquiry into their political activism and potential biases; he is suggesting that Curiel – a man who supports awarding an illegal alien a scholarship – might not view favorably a man who wants to deport the said scholarship recipient.


Recusal is a common theme when pro-choice advocates run up against pro-life judges. Recently, some scholars wanted Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself from McCullen v. Coakley; a case concerning abortion clinic buffer zones. But such requests are rarely viewed in a negative light."

"But this debate is not just about Trump or Trump University; it is about a politically correct double standard that permits liberals to use the faith of pro-life judges to boot them from a case, but calls questioning the ethnicity based activism of a liberal judge racism. And this is a concept the voters understand."

Rigged: The Trial of Trump University | The American Spectator

https://theconservativetreehouse.co...-who-paid-675000-to-bill-and-hillary-clinton/

 

[Que]

Que, it just seems that there is cognitive dissonance here. If judges in general, and judge Curiel in particular, are models of objectivity and are not swayed by their beliefs but only the law; then any worry that the next president will appoint left leaning, biased judges for SCOTUS and the federal bench is specious. There is nothing to worry about because questioning a judge's impartiality is demeaning and unnecessary.

But you and I both know that this is not the case. Judges are selected by the party in power, and resisted by the party in opposition, specifically because both sides believe they are biased to rule in a certain way on what are considered important issues. Once you grant that judges are selected because they are expected to be reliably biased toward (or against) a certain viewpoint, then I do not see why any judge cannot be called to account for their actions and rulings in the courtroom

I will grant that Trump U is not nearly an important or resonant enough issue that one would expect a judge to have strong opinions either way, but the argument is whether he could have a strong enough animosity to the man to color his rulings in the case. I think that is well within the realm of possibility

I don't know what goes on in the mind of Trump so it could be he really thinks no 'Mexican' could give him a fair trial, but I doubt it. If I had to guess I would conclude Trump either seeks to push the judge to perhaps rule more favorably to him in the future, or more likely he has already concluded he will lose this round and is setting the stage to appeal

I do find it difficult to accept that you cannot see a potential for real bias here, though. Would you find it equally hard to believe a white judge of a southern circuit could be biased against a black defendant or perhaps that a Christian Identity or white supremacist adherent might seriously question the impartiality of a black judge if he were on trial? Especially if the white judge had ties to white power group or the black judge had similar ties to racial identity politics (as Curiel seems to have ties to La Raza along with the bankroll behind the lawsuit)

I expect some pushback from you on this because by sketching the simple picture of 'southern white' or 'black' judge I have abstracted real people tremendously and stereotyped them. The motivations of 'southern white' or 'black' would be complex and subtle and make it much harder to predict how they might affect their impartiality but I've simplified the case to try to get to an agreement that judges are manifestly not saints and can indeed be biased. Once we get there I see no reason why Trump couldn't question this particular judges impartiality to him (Trump)

I've linked this before, but please give it a once over
Donald Trump Is Correct To Hit ?La Raza? Judge For Latino Identity Politics - Breitbart ( yes I know a Breitbart cite will raise some hackles C'est la vie )

"Judge Curiel’s integrity is not being questioned by Trump just because of his Hispanic heritage. Trump is merely asserting that a person’s heritage does not foreclose a proper inquiry into their political activism and potential biases; he is suggesting that Curiel – a man who supports awarding an illegal alien a scholarship – might not view favorably a man who wants to deport the said scholarship recipient.


Recusal is a common theme when pro-choice advocates run up against pro-life judges. Recently, some scholars wanted Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself from McCullen v. Coakley; a case concerning abortion clinic buffer zones. But such requests are rarely viewed in a negative light."

"But this debate is not just about Trump or Trump University; it is about a politically correct double standard that permits liberals to use the faith of pro-life judges to boot them from a case, but calls questioning the ethnicity based activism of a liberal judge racism. And this is a concept the voters understand."

Rigged: The Trial of Trump University | The American Spectator

https://theconservativetreehouse.co...-who-paid-675000-to-bill-and-hillary-clinton/

Okay, taking a step back, I see your point. The judge just may be so biased as to allow his prejudice against trump to sway his ruling. I cannot say with certainly this is or is not true, because I just don't know. If it is, I wish Trump would handle his personal business for what it is...personal. This is not an immediate concern for the country.

As for my other point, if the possibility exists that a judge can rule with biases, we must also be willing to admit that Trump could run the country with the same biases he has demonstrated during his campaign. This is an immediate concern for the country and is somewhat disturbing to me.

 

[2A_Tom]

Whereas Hil and Bo are completely unbiased.

 

[BugI02]

Okay, taking a step back, I see your point. The judge just may be so biased as to allow his prejudice against trump to sway his ruling. I cannot say with certainly this is or is not true, because I just don't know. If it is, I wish Trump would handle his personal business for what it is...personal. This is not an immediate concern for the country.

As for my other point, if the possibility exists that a judge can rule with biases, we must also be willing to admit that Trump could run the country with the same biases he has demonstrated during his campaign. This is an immediate concern for the country and is somewhat disturbing to me.

Indeed. Although the ideal is for the president to represent all Americans, there is no presumption of or requirement for the president to be impartial

I think some people forget that Trump is still a private citizen who has to take care of his own legal business. Much has been made of the fact he is running for president, as if that should affect his behavior, but he is not yet the president

Or to look at it from the other side, the people suing him are not treating him like he is the president. Why require a particular decorum from one but not the other

 

[1DOWN4UP]

As for my other point, if the possibility exists that a judge can rule with biases, we must also be willing to admit that Trump could run the country with the same biases he has demonstrated during his campaign. This is an immediate concern for the country and is somewhat disturbing to me.

It is kind of like fundamentally changing the country at such drastic rate that MOST people do not even recognize the country in which they now have and now have to try to get it back close to what it once was.

 

[Sylvain]

That right there is the million $ question. It would truly make things go sideways if he did give Hillary the VP or some other high-powered role. I mean, it would literally be an admission that the whole system has been gamed. I think Civil War II would kick off immediately.

Or if Hillary got elected and gave Trump the VP.
That would be something.

 

[Dead Duck]

So-
Can I have all your guns when Hillary is President. I mean, this is a gun forum and yet some of you are just dying to have them taken away.
Therefore, you do not deserve to own guns.



No Hi-Points or Squirrel Guns Please!

 

[Que]

Indeed. Although the ideal is for the president to represent all Americans, there is no presumption of or requirement for the president to be impartial

I think some people forget that Trump is still a private citizen who has to take care of his own legal business. Much has been made of the fact he is running for president, as if that should affect his behavior, but he is not yet the president

Or to look at it from the other side, the people suing him are not treating him like he is the president. Why require a particular decorum from one but not the other

Now I must push back a little. One should demonstrate how they will act as President, which is why most on this forum resist the notion of Clibton being President: she has demonstrated who she will be. The same goes for Trump and we can't expect he will be a Presidemt for all the people once he takes office.

As for the standard, I tell my children their behavior represents God and their family, no matter what others do. One running for President should have some kind of standard and Trump does not seem to have one, which is why he is pretty much unacceptable for me, right now.

 

[Bennettjh]

Trump.

 

[Que]

So-
Can I have all your guns when Hillary is President. I mean, this is a gun forum and yet some of you are just dying to have them taken away.
Therefore, you do not deserve to own guns.



No Hi-Points or Squirrel Guns Please!

Who exactly is dying to have their guns taken away and doesn't deserve to have them? Maybe you can convince them to your way of thinking since this is a discussion board. We've allowed the place to become everything but a discussion board, so maybe we can give it a try.

 

[Dead Duck]

Who exactly is dying to have their guns taken away and doesn't deserve to have them? Maybe you can convince them to your way of thinking since this is a discussion board. We've allowed the place to become everything but a discussion board, so maybe we can give it a try.

Easy-Pesy-
I can't have Hillary in the White House again. I spent 8 terrible years of her anti-gun rules in the 90s.

The only way I see this ending would be to vote for the candidate that is in the best position to beat her....Period. I don't care who it is as long as I can keep my guns....that is all I care about. Everything after that is gravy.
I'm not a Trump fan but so far it looks like he is gonna be it. I don't see it as an easy win no matter who, so it's everyone against Hillary. Everyone!

Anyone sitting on their hands because "Pride" or wasting their vote on a candidate that has no freakin chance of winning, is yes, a vote for Hillary. How can it not be.




World War 2 - Germany vs Allies
How would that have worked if the Allies were also fighting each other? To many fronts.
Wir würden jetzt alle sprechen deutsch.

 

[Que]

Easy-Pesy-
I can't have Hillary in the White House again. I spent 8 terrible years of her anti-gun rules in the 90s.

The only way I see this ending would be to vote for the candidate that is in the best position to beat her....Period. I don't care who it is as long as I can keep my guns....that is all I care about. Everything after that is gravy.
I'm not a Trump fan but so far it looks like he is gonna be it. I don't see it as an easy win no matter who, so it's everyone against Hillary. Everyone!

Anyone sitting on their hands because "Pride" or wasting their vote on a candidate that has no freakin chance of winning, is yes, a vote for Hillary. How can it not be.




World War 2 - Germany vs Allies
How would that have worked if the Allies were also fighting each other? To many fronts.
Wir würden jetzt alle sprechen deutsch.

I definitely see your point, please understand that. I think what is difficult for some to understand is that I also lived through the 90's and also the 80's. I experienced, first hand, how politicians used laws to lock up people in my community for very long periods of time, while others committing the very same offenses didn't serve any time. For example, being caught with crack versus powder cocaine or a 1911 versus a "street sweeper".

I liken this discussion to some of my Christian brothers and sisters: they want Jesus to come back, but not today; they know the church is supposed to be persecuted for Christ's sake, but they bawl about unfair treatment; they believe in heaven, but go into depression when someone dies and goes there. As gun owners we say, "...from my cold dead hands!"; "Come and get 'em!"; wave the Gadsden flag and talk very tough, but we depend on ONE individual to ensure we don't have to stand by those words?

I may may end up voting for Trump, but right now I know, according to his words and actions, he just doesn't give a damn about anyone he doesn't identy with, beyond providing him the benefit of their vote. I'm not a victim and I'm not a race baiter, but I am considering the fact that although Trump will allow me to keep my guns, with him in office, there may be a greater chance that I will have to use them to defend myself, my family and our freedom. This may sound dramatic to some, but I'm sure I'm not alone. And just in case that time does come, I do not have faith that those who voted for Trump for the sake of 2A Rights; encouraged others to do so and voiced accusations of some being a traitor to the cause, will be by my side in that fight.

So, no, I am not one who wants to give up my guns, but I also don't want to give up other things, which are just as important to me, even if others do not have the same experience.

 

[Dead Duck]

Nope, You're not along.

they believe in heaven, but go into depression when someone dies and goes there.

I know exactly what you mean.
As a little boy, I brought this to my families attention at my Grand Fathers funeral. The guy just suffered through a long screaming, painful battle w/cancer and they all prepped me for the worse because I was young but when he finally died, they all had breakdowns and I was the only one being grateful that he was taken and not suffering anymore. Silly adults...

 

[BehindBlueI's]

World War 2 - Germany vs Allies
How would that have worked if the Allies were also fighting each other? To many fronts.
Wir würden jetzt alle sprechen deutsch.

Actually, no. Axis vs allies. You see "pride", I see fundamental constitutional and ethical issues. To me it's more like supporting Japan because they aren't really as bad as Germany. Whichever one wins, the allies lose.

 

[printcraft]

The 2nd Amendment is the only thing keeping the others around.

 

[BugI02]

Now I must push back a little. One should demonstrate how they will act as President, which is why most on this forum resist the notion of Clibton being President: she has demonstrated who she will be. The same goes for Trump and we can't expect he will be a Presidemt for all the people once he takes office.

As for the standard, I tell my children their behavior represents God and their family, no matter what others do. One running for President should have some kind of standard and Trump does not seem to have one, which is why he is pretty much unacceptable for me, right now.

It can be argued that there are no heroes anymore. I personally think a lot of people counted as inspirational (think JFK) would not have been in today's world as we would have long known all their peccadilloes and shortcomings.

It sure seems sometimes that if Trump has a moral compass it is set to bermuda triangle, he can seem like a spoiled brat. I don't get the feeling he has much of a spiritual dimension, but I feel that there is something more there than just a huckster.

I'm sure I'll get cultist dismissals but I believe that the Lord quite often turns to imperfect implements to achieve His purposes. I know nothing of the future but I believe good can come of this election as well as bad. I think we're on the ropes but we shouldn't throw in the towel just yet

 

[Kutnupe14]

104 votes for the wanting to give out handouts, build a wall that Mexicans will pay for, let's Bruce Jenner use the lady's room. Lol, the absurdity of this election is quite entertaining.
You'd think this would be a blessing in disguise for real republicans. They have their opportunity to split off from RINOs, disavow Trump, and possibly bring in loads of conservative minded minorities (like me) into the fold. The fact that they're supporting Trump, will have long lasting consequences. They'll most assuredly regret it.

 

[Que]

The 2nd Amendment is the only thing keeping the others around.

This is anoher quip our community likes to use, but doesn't make sense. It sounds good in spirit, but has no practical application.

 

[printcraft]

Look around the world to see how well it works out for the population when they are disarmed and compare.

 

[Tombs]

I definitely see your point, please understand that. I think what is difficult for some to understand is that I also lived through the 90's and also the 80's. I experienced, first hand, how politicians used laws to lock up people in my community for very long periods of time, while others committing the very same offenses didn't serve any time. For example, being caught with crack versus powder cocaine or a 1911 versus a "street sweeper".

I liken this discussion to some of my Christian brothers and sisters: they want Jesus to come back, but not today; they know the church is supposed to be persecuted for Christ's sake, but they bawl about unfair treatment; they believe in heaven, but go into depression when someone dies and goes there. As gun owners we say, "...from my cold dead hands!"; "Come and get 'em!"; wave the Gadsden flag and talk very tough, but we depend on ONE individual to ensure we don't have to stand by those words?

I may may end up voting for Trump, but right now I know, according to his words and actions, he just doesn't give a damn about anyone he doesn't identy with, beyond providing him the benefit of their vote. I'm not a victim and I'm not a race baiter, but I am considering the fact that although Trump will allow me to keep my guns, with him in office, there may be a greater chance that I will have to use them to defend myself, my family and our freedom. This may sound dramatic to some, but I'm sure I'm not alone. And just in case that time does come, I do not have faith that those who voted for Trump for the sake of 2A Rights; encouraged others to do so and voiced accusations of some being a traitor to the cause, will be by my side in that fight.

So, no, I am not one who wants to give up my guns, but I also don't want to give up other things, which are just as important to me, even if others do not have the same experience.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you do realize this is an eventuality unless the western world as a whole pulls their heads out of their rear ends and shuts down the leftist movement, people have to stop playing with this and pretending that tolerating it will make it go away. Europe is going to end up causing world war 3 with the refugee crisis and we're going to be in the midsts of a civil war.

Don't believe me? Since when has simply attending a political rally for a major party's nominee caused police to stand back and watch as political opponents beat attendees families senseless in the streets? Since when have "citizens" burned their own flag while waving another nation's flag at a major political rally? Since when does a nation tolerate repeated horrendous terrorist attacks and mass rapings from asylum seekers, and continue to leave their borders wide open? Since when does the western world start enacting anti-hate speech laws in attempts to shut down freedom of speech and of the press? Since when has a nation come this close to electing a murderous felon and traitor to be their leader simply because of their gender? The list can go on endlessly, but I digress.

The nonsense has been building for awhile, but the last 2 years have seen it grow at an exponential rate. To be honest, I'm going to be surprised if this nation still exists after November. Check out gun sales over the past 4 years, everyone knows this is eventually coming whether they want to admit it or not.

If you think this is overly dramatic, start paying attention.