PDA

View Full Version : I just watched Donald Trump on Face the Nation



Tom Montgomery
06-05-2016, 10:01 AM
The man actually babbles.

As far as I can determine The Donald thinks judge Curiel is biased against him because he has made several judgements against Trump, has a Spanish surname, is proud of his heritage, and belongs to a Latino American legal association. All that and the fact that Trump intends to build a wall (which he repeated again and again).

After complaining about a number of rulings the judge has made against him in the Trump University lawsuit, the interviewer says, "I guess I'm just still confused what his Mexican parents have to do with that."

Trumps response, "Excuse me, I want to build a wall. I mean, I don't think it's very confusing. Has nothing to do with anything except common sense. You know, we have to stop being so politically correct in this country. And we need a little more common sense, John."

Of course Trump immediately contradicts himself by claiming that many Hispanics like what he is saying because "they are here legally."

I did not realize Judge Curiel is an illegal alien. :rolleyes:
.

CWSmith
06-05-2016, 10:05 AM
I think his argument, poorly made, is that the judge has made bad rulings against him, he must be prejudiced, it must be the wall.

Yes, he babbles. I can't imagine 4 years of this nonsense.

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2016, 10:06 AM
Well, I don't want a German with a nazi attitude about him, running my country so there!:(

Nicholas Scheuer
06-05-2016, 10:50 AM
"Common Sense" are code words among the intellectually challenged who make up the majority of Trump's supporters. If you reconsider a variety of Trump's utterances you find that he has not expressed an original thought in months. Much of it is just variations on his "You're fired - - -I had no choice" monologue from his Apprentice Show, blended with the message on his red hat. Meeting with international leaders, Merkle would probably leave the room in disgust; Putin would hang around longer just for the entertainment value.

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2016, 10:57 AM
Yup, every rally, with just a few side bars to attack some individual is always the same. Heck, he could play a recording at any of them, leave and go eat lunch at the Trump Towers, no one would notice!

Sky Blue
06-05-2016, 10:57 AM
When is the last time Hillary Clinton gave a press conference?

Keith Wilson
06-05-2016, 11:02 AM
Quem deus vult perdere, prius dementat.

Domesticated_Mr. Know It All
06-05-2016, 11:02 AM
The guy's a nutjob Tom.
His brain can't keep up with his mouth.

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2016, 11:02 AM
And it matters why, why does she need a news conference? Trump loves the attention, keeps the media spinning and his name in the news. I'd call them interviews and he gives a lot of them for those reasons. Oh, and he loves hearing himself talk a lot..

Sky Blue
06-05-2016, 03:08 PM
This analysis argues that Trump is simply engaging in identity politics. Why, exactly, must Trump assume that the Judge is entirely free of biases or other issues of identity that may operate to his detriment? The Judge has his own identity affiliations. Other groups are quite free to openly make these assumptions. Why is Trump forbidden from doing so?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/trumps-jujitsu-overthrow-of-liberalism.php

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2016, 03:15 PM
So does Trump so what's your real point? Let me guess, he's hispanic, no other reason. Don't keep trying to say it's something else.

By the way, no one is without bias, that's human nature.Trump is just whining because there is sand in his diaper and is thin skinned. Not unusual for a mental 3 yr old

Bottom line, he knows the Trump University could be his achilles' heel.

Sky Blue
06-05-2016, 03:27 PM
The progressive Left is learning that identity politics do not belong to them exclusively as a means of accruing to electoral power. They've hustled up a very big problem for themselves for this election and beyond. Hope it was worth it.

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2016, 03:29 PM
That must piss off the GOP. They thought they had a monopoly on such behavior!Gerrymandering is more their style, the electoral college has nothing to do with it really but, have fun making a mountain out of a mole hill.

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2016, 03:53 PM
onald Trump is intensifying his attacks on the federal judg (http://www.npr.org/2016/05/31/480183253/donald-trump-attacks-federal-judge-involved-in-trump-university-case)e presiding over fraud lawsuits against Trump University (http://www.npr.org/2016/06/01/480279246/hard-sell-the-potential-political-consequences-of-the-trump-university-documents). On Friday the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, dismissing criticism from legal experts on the right and left, pressed his case against U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, saying the Indiana-born judge is biased against him because "he's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico."
Trump made the remarks, and others like it, repeatedly, in interviews with CNN and The Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-keeps-up-attacks-on-judge-gonzalo-curiel-1464911442), referring to Judge Curiel variously as "of Mexican heritage" or just "Mexican." But the message was always the same, that the judge had what Trump called "a conflict" because of his ethnicity.
At a rally in San Diego last week, Trump characterized the judge as "a hater of Donald Trump, a hater. He's a hater." And "they ought to look into Judge Curiel."
In public, Trump has called repeatedly for the judge to recuse himself, but his lawyers in fact have not made any such request.That is undoubtedly because court precedents are unanimous in holding that race, ethnicity, gender, religion and sexual orientation are not themselves grounds for disqualifying a judge. If they were, legal ethicists observe, the legal system would fall into chaos because no judge would be free from taint. The five Supreme Court justices who are Catholic could not rule on a case in which the Catholic church participated, but neither could the other justices who are not Catholic.
Moreover, while Trump is free to say anything he wants about the judge, the lawyers in the case are bound by the professional rules of conduct and could be sanctioned for making such charges about Curiel without actual evidence of bias.
Legal ethics expert Stephen Gillers (https://its.law.nyu.edu/facultyprofiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=profile.overview&personid=19943) notes in addition that litigants may not wait to seek a judge's disqualification; they must move to recuse the judge as soon as they know there is a conflict.
Trump's lawyers, from the prestigious O'Melveny & Myers (https://www.omm.com/) firm, however, have not done that. Indeed, some observers argue that the judge did the candidate a big favor by postponing the trial in the case until after the election. And Trump did not become bellicose about Curiel until the judge, at the request of news organizations, ordered the unsealing of documents in the case— documents that have proved embarrassing for the GOP presumptive nominee.
"This is not really about rebutting accusations that Trump University defrauded its students," said NYU's Gillers. Rather, it is a kind of dog whistle to supporters, "a way to keep the subject of illegal Mexican immigration on the front page."
Judge Curiel, appointed to the federal bench by President Obama, was born in Indiana, the son of Mexican-American immigrants. He served for 17 years as a federal prosecutor in California, rising to chief of narcotics enforcement in the southern district. In 1997 he was believed to be the target of an assassination attempt from a Mexican drug cartel, was put under 24-hour watch by the U.S. Marshall Service for a year, was moved to a military base and eventually to Justice Department headquarters in Washington, D.C.
The judge's friend, former U.S. Attorney Gregory Vega, scoffs at the notion that Curiel will be in any way influenced by Trump's remarks. "What's so ironic is that Gonzalo gave so many years of his life to protecting America from drug traffickers," Vega toldYahoo News (https://www.yahoo.com/news/who-is-gonzalo-curiel-the-mexican-judge-denounced-by-trump-fought-the-drug-cartels-175229578.html). "He had a credible threat on his life. Do you really think being called [names] by Mr. Trump is going to frighten him? How silly."

Chris Smith porter maine
06-05-2016, 04:17 PM
I just heard on the radio he doubled down and also said a Muslim Judge would be biased....

LeeG
06-05-2016, 04:24 PM
I just heard on the radio he doubled down and also said a Muslim Judge would be biased....

this really doesn't sound like someone who is trying to win the election but win with his fans. Like getting a loyal customer base. It's one thing to gather supporters with dog whistles but to actually say bigoted things rallies the opposition.

Jim Mahan
06-05-2016, 04:25 PM
Apparently no one will be unbiased enough; he'll just have to be the judge in his trials. Hey, guess what, it's gonna be great. Juries love him.

CWSmith
06-05-2016, 04:32 PM
I just heard on the radio he doubled down and also said a Muslim Judge would be biased....

That's not quite what I remember. It was more like a Muslim judge could be biased, but I was busy feeling sick to my stomach by that point.

Jim Bow
06-05-2016, 05:40 PM
When is the last time Hillary Clinton gave a press conference?
Hillary was on Face The Nation May 8.

Paul Pless
06-05-2016, 05:59 PM
This analysis argues that Trump is simply engaging in identity politics. its all he's got, he's entirely bankrupt otherwise

Sky Blue
06-05-2016, 05:59 PM
The Democrats have been swearing up and down that Trump's comments have been bigoted and racist. If that is so, and is believed true by Muslims and/or persons of Hispanic descent (as Democrats would like them to believe), then why is it so unreasonable for Mr. Trump to assume Judges from these backgrounds could be biased against him?

PeterSibley
06-05-2016, 06:02 PM
Because you are assuming a a Judge can't perform his duties honestly. You assume he is as vile as Trump.

Chip-skiff
06-05-2016, 06:05 PM
The Democrats have been swearing up and down that Trump's comments have been bigoted and racist. If that is so, and is believed true by Muslims and/or persons of Hispanic descent (as Democrats would like them to believe), then why is it so unreasonable for Mr. Trump to assume Judges from these backgrounds could be biased against him?

Most judges have professional ethics and standards for their conduct on the bench. Judge Curiel (do look him up) is a staunchly ethical and courageous person.

Trump, on the other hand, has questionable ethics (fraud, lying, cheating on wives, etc.) and virtually no standards, considering the mad rubbish that pours from his lips.

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2016, 06:19 PM
That's why SB loves him so. Amorality is 'cool'.Heck, it's a requirement!:(

Sky Blue
06-05-2016, 06:21 PM
Because you are assuming a a Judge can't perform his duties honestly. You assume he is as vile as Trump.

No, honesty and bias are two very different things, Peter.

PeterSibley
06-05-2016, 06:24 PM
Not for a Judge SB.

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2016, 06:24 PM
Even Trump's lawyers say Trump is loco and won't support Trump in his whining, that says it all. No one, dee or republicans are supporting Trump on issue. The only one appears to be you alone SB

Duncan Gibbs
06-05-2016, 06:25 PM
Bluey! Mr Blue!

I really don't have the foggiest of why you give Trump your support. YOU can write and (I assume) talk one hundred thousand times more coherently than Trump can. This:

"Excuse me, I want to build a wall. I mean, I don't think it's very confusing. Has nothing to do with anything except common sense. You know, we have to stop being so politically correct in this country. And we need a little more common sense, John."

... is just a bunch of non-sentences and only-just-sentences strung together that do nothing to answer the question he was actually asked. I seriously doubt Trump would actually know what "identity politics" are, let alone have the vocabulary to place these two words together in the first place. He speaks in almost pure gibberish, only peppering his speech with little obita dicta that reinforce the notion he's a "plane talking" kinda guy. He can't actually form a coherent idea to begin with.

Why on Earth do you think he'll make such a good POTUS?
List some actual reasons and try using bullet points to make them absolutely clear.

Duncan Gibbs
06-05-2016, 06:31 PM
The Democrats have been swearing up and down that Trump's comments have been bigoted and racist. If that is so, and is believed true by Muslims and/or persons of Hispanic descent (as Democrats would like them to believe), then why is it so unreasonable for Mr. Trump to assume Judges from these backgrounds could be biased against him?
Maybe because he actually has a case to answer.

Maybe because it's apparent in law, that he's apparently in breach of the law, and this needs to be properly tested before a jury.

Maybe because the rule of law, and the rules of evidence actually count for something in Western Democratic traditions.

Do YOU believe that the rule of law and the rules of evidence are important principles to adhere to in order to preserve Western Civilisation?

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2016, 06:37 PM
Maybe rump realizes he got caught with his pants at half mast and knows it. Trying to weasel out of it. If the judge doesn't work, he just will turn to the jury and call them stupid and ignorant as well as biased. Heaven help a woman jurist, the vitriol will flow like a burst dam.

Whatever works!

Sky Blue
06-05-2016, 06:43 PM
Not for a Judge SB.

That's not true, Peter. In fact, the law presumes bias on the part of a judge in any number of contexts, requiring automatic disqualification (even if there is no actual bias).

Judges are biased, as are all human beings, on any number of issues at any given time. It is not terribly difficult to imagine, for example, that the judge being screwed over by an ex in a divorce proceeding may not perhaps be the fairest clear-eyed arbiter of a dispute with similar dynamics being litigated before him/her.

Similarly, the Judge with a family member harmed by a DUI driver may not be the most unbiased arbiter in a criminal trial on a DUI. Any other analogous examples can come to mind.

This is just human nature. There need not be anything nefarious at play. Indeed, Trump noted that whatever beliefs the judge may have are "fine," but that some of those beliefs nevertheless may constitute bias against him.

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2016, 06:45 PM
Why don't you read my C&P, that nonissue is covered. Try reading it. Of course, it's not something you'd want to read but, take a chance!Here, I'll copy it again so as not to tire you out looking for it. Pay attention to the highlighted sentences.

onald Trump is intensifying his attacks on the federal judg (http://www.npr.org/2016/05/31/480183253/donald-trump-attacks-federal-judge-involved-in-trump-university-case)e presiding over fraud lawsuits against Trump University (http://www.npr.org/2016/06/01/480279246/hard-sell-the-potential-political-consequences-of-the-trump-university-documents). On Friday the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, dismissing criticism from legal experts on the right and left, pressed his case against U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, saying the Indiana-born judge is biased against him because "he's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico."
Trump made the remarks, and others like it, repeatedly, in interviews with CNN and The Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-keeps-up-attacks-on-judge-gonzalo-curiel-1464911442), referring to Judge Curiel variously as "of Mexican heritage" or just "Mexican." But the message was always the same, that the judge had what Trump called "a conflict" because of his ethnicity.
At a rally in San Diego last week, Trump characterized the judge as "a hater of Donald Trump, a hater. He's a hater." And "they ought to look into Judge Curiel."
In public, Trump has called repeatedly for the judge to recuse himself, but his lawyers in fact have not made any such request.That is undoubtedly because court precedents are unanimous in holding that race, ethnicity, gender, religion and sexual orientation are not themselves grounds for disqualifying a judge. If they were, legal ethicists observe, the legal system would fall into chaos because no judge would be free from taint. The five Supreme Court justices who are Catholic could not rule on a case in which the Catholic church participated, but neither could the other justices who are not Catholic.
Moreover, while Trump is free to say anything he wants about the judge, the lawyers in the case are bound by the professional rules of conduct and could be sanctioned for making such charges about Curiel without actual evidence of bias.
Legal ethics expert Stephen Gillers (https://its.law.nyu.edu/facultyprofiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=profile.overview&personid=19943) notes in addition that litigants may not wait to seek a judge's disqualification; they must move to recuse the judge as soon as they know there is a conflict.
Trump's lawyers, from the prestigious O'Melveny & Myers (https://www.omm.com/) firm, however, have not done that. Indeed, some observers argue that the judge did the candidate a big favor by postponing the trial in the case until after the election. And Trump did not become bellicose about Curiel until the judge, at the request of news organizations, ordered the unsealing of documents in the case— documents that have proved embarrassing for the GOP presumptive nominee.
"This is not really about rebutting accusations that Trump University defrauded its students," said NYU's Gillers. Rather, it is a kind of dog whistle to supporters, "a way to keep the subject of illegal Mexican immigration on the front page."
Judge Curiel, appointed to the federal bench by President Obama, was born in Indiana, the son of Mexican-American immigrants. He served for 17 years as a federal prosecutor in California, rising to chief of narcotics enforcement in the southern district. In 1997 he was believed to be the target of an assassination attempt from a Mexican drug cartel, was put under 24-hour watch by the U.S. Marshall Service for a year, was moved to a military base and eventually to Justice Department headquarters in Washington, D.C.
The judge's friend, former U.S. Attorney Gregory Vega, scoffs at the notion that Curiel will be in any way influenced by Trump's remarks. "What's so ironic is that Gonzalo gave so many years of his life to protecting America from drug traffickers," Vega toldYahoo News (https://www.yahoo.com/news/who-is-gonzalo-curiel-the-mexican-judge-denounced-by-trump-fought-the-drug-cartels-175229578.html). "He had a credible threat on his life. Do you really think being called [names] by Mr. Trump is going to frighten him? How silly."

Sky Blue
06-05-2016, 07:05 PM
Trump's attorneys, I'd argue, have a legal duty (to Trump) to file a motion for disqualification since their client has said he believes the judge is biased against him.

Judge Curiel will likely hear this motion and deny it. Trump's attorneys will appeal this ruling, probably, delaying the issue of the bias determination until after November, at which time the issue will be moot (and Trump will have gotten all of the media mileage out of it).

One of Trump's greatest strengths is his ability to portray himself as a victim of other institutional actors that are not trusted by the people, such as elite media, the conservative press, the courts, the Republican "establishment," the Party generally. It's all part of the narrative. His constituents identify with it owing to their own biases.

Right or wrong, this is all part of the campaign strategy. He's trapped the media in their own stale playbook that knows nothing but the "gotcha" game. They keep going to the well, however, but keep coming up craps. You'd think they'd learn, but then to do so would be to surrender their power, their "playbook."

Trump is playing the media, once again, like a fiddle. And they just keep feeding it. The media is what will get Trump elected.

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2016, 07:09 PM
Well then Trump should fire them because they are not taking his orders. The entire issue is laid out for you to read. Obviously you won't. Nothing else to say to you. Not worth the bother. If you can't find an article that supports your position, nothing will change your mind. Really sad but, typical! Nothing worse than a closed mind!

Duncan Gibbs
06-05-2016, 07:16 PM
[...]

Why on Earth do you think he'll make such a good POTUS?
List some actual reasons and try using bullet points to make them absolutely clear.


[...]
Do YOU believe that the rule of law and the rules of evidence are important principles to adhere to in order to preserve Western Civilisation?
Crickets...

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2016, 07:19 PM
Crickets...A lot of them out there. They are in competition with the bull frogs!

seanz
06-05-2016, 08:26 PM
I think his argument, poorly made, is that the judge has made bad rulings against him, he must be prejudiced, it must be the wall.

Yes, he babbles. I can't imagine 4 years of this nonsense.


8 years of W doesn't give you a hint?

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2016, 08:28 PM
8 years of W doesn't give you a hint?I think Trump will be worse nationally and foreign.

Duncan Gibbs
06-05-2016, 08:34 PM
Not even close Sean!

Paul McGeogh in today's Sydney Morning Herald:


Washington: It's fair to say now, that if the angry old white men who are a rump constituency in the Republican Party were to hit on Adolf Hitler as a presidential nominee, the party establishment likely would say, 'well, that's nice – he'll do.'

Put to one side any gap that remains on the spectrum of political ugliness between presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump and a Hitler-type, the extent to which the party is rallying around the New York mogul puts the US on course for a disturbing moment of self-revelation – if Trump wins, will it be his face that Americans see when they look in the mirror on the morning of November 9?
Advertisement

On Sunday, Trump opened a new flank in his self-serving attack on the judiciary – previously it was based on race, now it is based on religion too.

Through much of the previous week, he bashed Gonzalo Curiel, a federal judge in California who is hearing a class action against Trump, on the grounds that there is a conflict of interest – the US-born Curiel is the son of Mexican parents and Trump wants to build a wall on the US-Mexico border.

On one of the Sunday TV talk shows, Trump doubled down – to his mind, a Muslim American judge would be saddled with the same conflict because, Trump says, as president he would bar all Muslims from entering the US.

Because this is such appalling stuff in a country built on immigration, it's worth reading the transcript of Trump's exchange with host John Dickerson on CBS's Face the Nation:

Dickerson: If it were a Muslim judge, would you also feel like they wouldn't be able to treat you fairly because of that policy of yours?
Trump: It's possible, yes. Yeah. That would be possible, absolutely.
Dickerson: Isn't there a sort of tradition, though, in America that we don't judge people by who their parents were and where they came from?
Trump: I'm not talking about tradition. I'm talking about common sense, okay? He's somebody — he's proud of his heritage. And I think that's great that he's proud of his heritage.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump brings a shadow to GOP. Photo: AP
Dickerson: But you're saying it's a barrier to him doing his job.
Trump: Well, he's not treating me — he's not treating me fairly.

In the same interview Trump took another lash at Curiel: "He is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine, but I say he's got bias. I want to build a wall. I'm going to build a wall. I'm doing very well with the Latinos, with the Hispanics, with the Mexicans, I'm doing very well with them, in my opinion."

Taken to its stupid, but logical conclusion, the Trump argument on Curiel and now on this theoretical Muslim jurist, means that no judge could adjudicate a case involving a prospective President Trump, because if a 'Mexican' or a Muslim judge should be disqualified from a case against Trump because the might be offended by any of Trump's policies, it follows then that any judge hearing a case against a President Trump would have the same conflict of interest that Trump attributes to Curiel – because of any of the myriad things a president might do that a judge might dislike.

It's as exceptionally stupid as that and in the absence of a forceful condemnation of Trump's racism and the rest of his bile, the GOP establishment owns it – just as Trump now owns them.

Sure, some of them tut-tut at Trump's crazy talk. But as each steps up to say they'll vote for him, finding themselves unable to utter the word 'endorse,' they are telling Americans – and the world – that to the extent that they might have a problem with Trump, they're going to…well, they're just going to suck it up.

http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/p/8/z/w/v/image.related.articleLeadNarrow.300x0.gpc9x1.png/1465172138138.jpg

Even as Trump was smashing the California judge, House Speaker Paul Ryan became the latest high-profile republican to give his blessing to Trump, posturing as though he'd told Trump that he'd have to behave himself, when all of America knows full well that Trump doesn't know how to behave – and is not interested in learning.

Consider the other nonsense utterances or suggestions, catalogued by The Washington Post, by this man who fought his way through a field of 16 opponents to emerge as the Republican presidential nominee:



Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was murdered
Rafael Cruz, father of his vanquished nomination challenger and Texas Senator Ted Cruz, was complicit in the John F Kennedy assassination
President Barack Obama's wedding ring is inscribed 'there is no god but Allah'
Obama did not write his memoir, Dreams from My Father
Obama was born 'Barry Soetero'
The Hawaii official who verified Obama's birth certificate, confirming that he was born in the US, was murdered
Clinton administration official Vincent Foster's suicide was also a murder
A demonstrator who rushed the stage at a Trump rally had ties to the so-called Islamic State
Islamic State pays the phone bills of Syrian refugees
The Internal Revenue Service decision to audit Trump's tax returns is a persecution effort based on the fact that Trump is a 'strong Christian'
The US government falsified statistics on unemployment, Ebola, refugees, health insurance and immigration
Global warming is a hoax created by the Chinese
Vaccines cause autism



Another Republican who can't say no to Trump is Arizona Senator and 2008 GOP presidential nominee John McCain, who Trump last year claimed was a loser, as were POWs generally, because he has been shot down and taken prisoner in Vietnam.
Yet, facing a difficult re-election campaign, McCain has concluded that he'd lose if he disowns Trump – and, seemingly, that principle should never get in the way of pragmatism.

In an interview published on Saturday, McCain told The New York Times of the question he was asked when he recently delivered a missing medal to a World War II veteran who also had been a POW – "he said to me, 'Why would Trump say something like that about us?' [and] frankly, I didn't have an answer for it."

The GOP has still to answer why they could find only Donald Trump as a presidential candidate. And come November, the US people might well have to find an answer for how they could put such a man in the White House.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/donald-trump-adolf-hitler-gop-doesnt-really-care-20160605-gpc9x1.html#ixzz4Al5ynYmn
So, once more with feeling Bluey, why is this madman supposed to be such a terrific possible POTUS?
I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

CWSmith
06-05-2016, 08:47 PM
8 years of W doesn't give you a hint?


I think Trump will be worse nationally and foreign.

Sadly, I must agree with S.V. Before Trump proved himself viable, I figured he was doing it for attention and as a president he would show maturity. I no longer think that.

GWB was intellectually lazy, but he understood that there was a higher goal. I didn't agree with his methods, but he never stooped to the rhetoric that comes from Trump. He embarrassed us, but he didn't resort to childish name calling.

I have fallen back to my mantra of the GWB years: once the voters have experienced enough pain they will wise up. It hasn't happened yet.

Bobcat
06-05-2016, 11:55 PM
Trump's attorneys, I'd argue, have a legal duty (to Trump) to file a motion for disqualification since their client has said he believes the judge is biased against him.

Snip



Trump's lawyers have ethical duties of their own to not file frivolous motions and a motion to disqualify a judge based on his or her ethnic background has no basis in law.

Sky Blue
06-06-2016, 12:04 AM
Trump's lawyers have ethical duties of their own to not file frivolous motions and a motion to disqualify a judge based on his or her ethnic background has no basis in law.

That's true as well. Perhaps nothing will occur and Trump just got a free week of airtime that he'll pay for with a quiet settlement down the road. His kids will handle it.

Old Dryfoot
06-06-2016, 12:06 AM
Trump has been involved in 3,500 lawsuits over the decades.

Gerarddm
06-06-2016, 12:45 AM
^ Most of any presidential candidate, ever. My favorite was when he sued Bill Maher for a few million bucks because Maher said his father was an orange orangutan. LOL.

No, the issue SB is that while any human has biases, to say that the judge specifically has it in for Drumpf solely because he is of Mexican heritage is not only demeaning to the law, but demeaning to any sense of fair play, i.e. innocent until proven guilty and all that. If the judge's rulings had been consistently overturned on appeal you might say that Drumpf has a point however small; but he does not. The only thing small that he has are his puny hands and equally sized intellect.

Tom Montgomery
06-06-2016, 03:26 AM
Trump is playing the media, once again, like a fiddle. And they just keep feeding it. The media is what will get Trump elected.
Hmmm....


Washington (CNN) Top Republican officials and donors are increasingly worried over the threat Donald Trump's attack on a judge's Mexican heritage could pose to their party's chances in November -- and about the GOP's ability to win Latino votes for many elections to come.

Trump is under fire for repeatedly accusing U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is overseeing a lawsuit involving Trump University, of bias because of his Mexican heritage. Those concerns intensified Sunday after Trump said he would have the same concerns about the impartiality of a Muslim judge.

House and Senate GOP leaders have condemned Trump's remarks about Curiel, while donors have openly worried that losing Latino voters could doom them in key down-ballot races. Other important party figures, including former Speaker Newt Gingrich, are urging Trump to change his combative, confrontational style before it's too late.

The GOP's deepest fear: A Barry Goldwater effect that could last far longer than Trump's political aspirations.

Goldwater, the Arizona senator who was the 1964 GOP nominee and a leader of the conservative movement, alienated a generation of African-American voters by opposing the Civil Rights Act -- opening the door for Democrats to lock in their support for decades. Republicans fret that Trump could similarly leave a stain with Latino voters.

"I am concerned about that," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said Sunday.

"America is changing. When Ronald Reagan was elected, 84% of the electorate was white," McConnell said on NBC's "Meet the Press." (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/05/politics/mitch-mcconnell-donald-trump-judge-racist/index.html) "This November, 70% will be. It's a big mistake for our party to write off Latino Americans. And they're an important part of the country and soon to be the largest minority group in the country."
"I hope he'll change his direction on that," said McConnell, who first made the Goldwater comparison last week in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/mitch-mcconnell-donald-trump-hispanics/).

That hasn't happened yet. In interviews Sunday, Trump wouldn't back away from his assertion that Curiel's parents' birth in Mexico has left the judge angry over Trump's proposal to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and biased in the legal case over Trump University. Trump even went further, saying on CBS' "Face the Nation" that he'd have similar concerns over a Muslim judge, since he has proposed banning all Muslims from entering the United States.

Trump's remarks led to condemnations from the same leading Republicans that in recent weeks have embraced him -- and accepted that the party's fate in November is inextricably linked to his.

"I don't agree with what he had to say," McConnell said.

"This is a man who was born in Indiana," McConnell said of Curiel. "All of us came here from somewhere else. Almost all Americans are either near-term immigrants like my wife, who came here at age 8 not speaking a word of English, or the rest of us whose ancestors were risk-takers who came here and made this country great. That's an important part of what makes America work."

House Speaker Paul Ryan, just a day after announcing his endorsement of Trump, bashed him on a Wisconsin radio station (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/03/politics/clinton-statement-on-trump-university-judge/).

"Look, the comment about the judge, just was out of left field for my mind," Ryan said Friday on WISN in Milwaukee. "It's reasoning I don't relate to, I completely disagree with the thinking behind that."

The criticism from McConnell and Ryan was predictable: Both preside over GOP majorities that are threatened thanks to competitive races in Latino-heavy states like Arizona, Nevada and Florida.

More surprising was the condemnation from Gingrich, who has transparently jockeyed for a spot on Trump's ticket.

"I don't know what Trump's reasoning was, and I don't care," Gingrich told The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pushing-racial-boundaries-trump-draws-rebuke-from-a-fretful-gop/2016/06/04/fbd298c8-2a6d-11e6-b989-4e5479715b54_story.html). "His description of the judge in terms of his parentage is completely unacceptable."

Gingrich was even sharper on "Fox News Sunday," calling Trump's remarks "inexcusable."

"This is one of the worst mistakes Trump has made," Gingrich said.

Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, the Armed Services Committee chairman who has provided key Republican support for Trump's foreign policy stances and is also often named as a prospective vice presidential candidate, rebuked Trump's comments about the judge on ABC's "This Week."

"I think that he's going to have to change," Corker said of Trump's overall behavior and campaign tactics.

Trump's campaign downplayed the impact of his assertion that the judge's Mexican heritage could preclude him from delivering fair rulings in the Trump University case.

A Trump official said the remarks are "no reason to celebrate, (but) no reason to panic" -- an indication there is concern inside the campaign but Trump's aides don't believe it's damaging long-term.

Another campaign adviser laughed when asked if Trump officials can talk to the candidate about watching what he says.

Alberto Gonzales (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/04/politics/alberto-gonzales-donald-trump-judge-curiel/index.html), who led the Justice Department under President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed Saturday that Curiel's Mexican heritage shouldn't be enough to disqualify him from overseeing the case. But, Gonzales said, Trump is entitled to a fair trial, and the appearance of impropriety could be enough for him to reasonably request that Curiel recuse himself.

Trump thanked Gonzales for his support.

Tom Montgomery
06-06-2016, 03:27 AM
The rest....


Inside the Republican Party, campaigns and donor circles, fear over the damage Trump's remarks could do to the party's relationship with Latino voters was palpable.

"Awful," a top Republican official said of Trump's attack on the judge. "We are all beside ourselves."

The official went on to say that "you have to feel for Paul Ryan," who had just announced his support for Trump.

In a series of interviews with donors, fundraisers and congressional officials, the depth of the concerns about what Trump's latest attacks underscore become clear.

"Honestly? My worst fear. Call me stupid -- I was one of the guys who figured he'd do the whole pivot thing," said one donor, referring to an often-used strategy of moving more to the middle after securing the nomination.

The donor, who had been active for several candidates during the primary, said he was "ready to get in line" once Trump signed the joint-fundraising agreement last month with the RNC. The bold names associated with the joint agreement -- people like businessman Woody Johnson -- were enough of a sign, the donor said.

Now? "Not so much."

But it may be bigger than that, according to several GOP officials. Republicans are defending 24 seats in the Senate while holding a slim four-seat majority. While the House majority is significantly more robust -- 58 seats -- there are members in that chamber who saw their seats move into riskier positions the day Trump locked up the nomination.

The solution -- one that top GOP officials on Capitol Hill have been repeating in the weeks since -- has been to make sure top donors dump cash into the down ballot races.

Up to this point, they've done just that. One fundraiser with ties to one of the two primary GOP congressional super PACs said donors have been "burning up the phone lines" trying to figure out how to help protect GOP majorities in Congress.

The primary Senate GOP super PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund, had more than $16.3 million on hand at the end of April, the last time numbers were reported with the FEC. The group raised more than $4 million in March and April alone -- a number that, according to the fundraiser, will increase "significantly" in the months ahead.

The top House super PAC, the Congressional Leadership Fund, nearly doubled its 2015 fundraising in the first quarter of 2016 alone.

"The concern is -- do we get to the point that all the money in the world doesn't matter?" asked another donor, who said his whole goal this cycle was to protect House and Senate candidates. "We're obviously not there right now, but stupid s--- like this really makes you wonder."

Democrats are certainly trying to make each Trump comment sting. The party's House and Senate campaign committees are firing out a steady clip of press releases attempting to tie each vulnerable candidate to Trump. Democrats make clear those comments will be featured heavily in the fall in attack ads.

Perhaps more noticeably, over the weekend, talks between top GOP figures about the future of the party have become more urgent. Several Republican officials pointed to McConnell's comments to Jake Tapper on CNN last week, where he first voiced concern about Trump's effect on Latino voters mirroring that of Goldwater's effect on black voters.

Yet those same officials watched McConnell go to great lengths not to say that Trump's attacks on the judge in the Trump University case were racism.

"That was just painful," said one Republican official who served in George W. Bush's administration. The official added that the reality is McConnell -- and Ryan and every Republican in a leadership position or facing an election challenge -- "will be stuck dealing with the latest Trumpism every interview of every day, of every month until November."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/05/politics/gop-fears-donald-trump-judge-attack/

PeterSibley
06-06-2016, 03:44 AM
Sadly, I must agree with S.V. Before Trump proved himself viable, I figured he was doing it for attention and as a president he would show maturity. I no longer think that.

GWB was intellectually lazy, but he understood that there was a higher goal. I didn't agree with his methods, but he never stooped to the rhetoric that comes from Trump. He embarrassed us, but he didn't resort to childish name calling.

I have fallen back to my mantra of the GWB years: once the voters have experienced enough pain they will wise up. It hasn't happened yet.

This the USA we are talking about .:(

Osborne Russell
06-06-2016, 06:50 PM
Hmmm....

"I don't know what Trump's reasoning was, and I don't care," Gingrich told The Washington Post. "His description of the judge in terms of his parentage is completely unacceptable."



Alberto Gonzales, who led the Justice Department under President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed Saturday that Curiel's Mexican heritage shouldn't be enough to disqualify him from overseeing the case. But, Gonzales said, Trump is entitled to a fair trial, and the appearance of impropriety could be enough for him to reasonably request that Curiel recuse himself.

Trump thanked Gonzales for his support.

That's how bad Trump is: I agree with Newt Gingrich.

Gonzalez is as clueless as ever. Trump has no evidence of impropriety or even the appearance of it. That's why his lawyers don't claim it. He may have ordered them to, and they refused. In any case, he hasn't. He only says it in the press. It's an attack on the judiciary, i.e. an attack on the separation of powers. Ain't gonna be no separation of powers under the Donald!

Gonzalez "did not recall" this as he did not recall ordering the firing of prosecutors who went after Republican criminals such as Randy "Top Gun" Cunningham (R-CA). Thus he remains on Trump's good side, for now.

Journalists and judges will be the first to feel the boot. The ground is being prepared.

Daniel Noyes
06-06-2016, 06:56 PM
Unfortunately Trump represents the Best most Intelligent impulses in the American Electorate... we just go down hill from there.

http://overpassesforamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/trump-rally-tard.png

S.V. Airlie
06-06-2016, 07:10 PM
Snore fart etc Noise. If you think you've lost your freedom, just wait Noise!

CWSmith
06-06-2016, 07:11 PM
This the USA we are talking about .:(

My kid sister once put her hands on an old oven's glass door. Burned her good. She learned. Why can't we?

johnw
06-06-2016, 07:36 PM
This analysis argues that Trump is simply engaging in identity politics. Why, exactly, must Trump assume that the Judge is entirely free of biases or other issues of identity that may operate to his detriment? The Judge has his own identity affiliations. Other groups are quite free to openly make these assumptions. Why is Trump forbidden from doing so?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/trumps-jujitsu-overthrow-of-liberalism.php

Keith quoted a pretty good explanation of the issue on this thread (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?207689-The-man-is-shameless/page3):



Why Isn’t Trump Using the Law to Back Up His Mouth?
He claims Judge Gonzalo Curiel's Mexican heritage is a conflict of interest, but his lawyers haven't filed a legal motion about it—for good reason.

BY STEVEN LUBET AND CHARLES GARDNER GEYH
June 6, 2016

Donald Trump has repeatedly argued that Judge Gonzalo Curiel has been unfair to him in the Trump University lawsuit and should recuse himself from the case. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee claims that Curiel’s Mexican heritage and his membership in the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association creates an “inherent conflict of interest” because, as Trump put it in an interview with CNN, “I am building a wall.” But even Trump’s own lawyers appear to know better.

Trump has a simple remedy for this alleged conflict of interest, but he has not invoked it. He could direct his attorneys to file a disqualification motion pursuant to the United States Judiciary Code, on the ground that Curiel’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Given how strongly Trump feels about the situation—he has even called for an investigation of Curiel—why haven’t his lawyers already taken the necessary steps to disqualify the judge?

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require lawyers to certify that their motions are “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.” The “existing law” could not be more clear that a judge’s background provides no legal basis for seeking disqualification. There is a long line of precedents applying this principle to African-American, Jewish, female, Catholic, Mormon, and gay judges. Any lawyer who brought a motion on similarly spurious grounds—or who tried to argue for changing the law to allow ethnicity-based disqualification—would be subject to sanctions including monetary penalties, censure, and even referral to the disciplinary authorities.

If Curiel, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, betrayed a racially motivated bias in his comments from the bench or in written orders, it would be a different story. But the most Trump has offered on that score is that Curiel has issued rulings that denied Trump’s motions to dismiss the case—hardly the appearance of bias that the law demands.

Trump’s lead counsel in the case is Daniel Petrocelli, who is the chair of the Trial Practice Committee at the megafirm O’Melveny and Myers, which is headquartered in Los Angeles and has 800 lawyers in offices around the world. Petrocelli is one of the most highly regarded trial lawyers in the United States, with an outstanding reputation for both ability and integrity. It is all but unimaginable that he would risk his reputation—and his firm’s—by bringing such a patently frivolous motion.

Could Trump order Petrocelli to move for Curiel’s disqualification? After all, Trump is a valuable fee-paying client, and lawyers are generally required to follow their client’s instructions. There is an exception, however, when clients make unreasonable demands. Under the California Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer may not “seek, accept, or continue employment” where the client’s objective is to “present a claim in litigation that is not warranted under existing law, unless it can be supported by a good faith argument for extension, modification, or reversal of such existing law.”
In other words, Petrocelli would have to withdraw as counsel if Trump were to insist on asserting his charges against Curiel in court rather than on television.
Because of attorney-client confidentiality, we have no way of knowing whether Trump and his lawyers have discussed the possibility of bringing a disqualification motion in the case. But we can be all but certain that Daniel Petrocelli would refuse if asked. That would leave Trump with only two choices. He could continue to suffer the public embarrassment of accepting a judge whose impartiality he has challenged, or he could fire his lawyers and hire new ones.

Steven Lubet is the Williams Memorial Professor of Law at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. Charles Gardner Geyh is the John F. Kimberling Professor of Law, Indiana University, Bloomington.
link (https://newrepublic.com/article/134013/isnt-trump-using-law-back-mouth)

So, to answer your question briefly, the reason he shouldn't claim the judge is biased is that there's not a scrap of evidence that it's true.

Keith Wilson
06-06-2016, 07:48 PM
So, to answer your question briefly, the reason he shouldn't claim the judge is biased is that there's not a scrap of evidence that it's true.And if there were, there's a standard legal procedure to get the judge removed from the case - which Mr Trump has not used.

Sky Blue
06-06-2016, 07:49 PM
So, to answer your question briefly, the reason he shouldn't claim the judge is biased is that there's not a scrap of evidence that it's true.

Alright. Today it occurs to me that the issue is a very carefully calculated pander to the black vote (with continuing feed for the nativists at the bottom). Is Trump that smart?

The relative silence of the black establishment (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?203836-The-Relative-Silence-of-the-Black-Establishment&highlight=) as to this specific identity politics matter, and others preceding it, continues to be one of the more interesting unexamined stories of this campaign season.

S.V. Airlie
06-06-2016, 07:53 PM
Keep finding excuses SB. Keep pandering to Trump. But, watch out, if your ilk elect him and you are stupid enough to say anything bad, your kids will turn you in. Just like what Hitler did. He will not take any negative comments and you will suffer the consequences if you do.

ron ll
06-06-2016, 07:56 PM
Alright. Today it occurs to me that the issue is a very carefully calculated pander to the black vote (with continuing feed for the nativists at the bottom). Is Trump that smart?



No.

S.V. Airlie
06-06-2016, 07:58 PM
No.But, he thinks he is!

ron ll
06-06-2016, 08:05 PM
Trump is definitely not smart. He may have a few smart people around him, but his personal frontal lobes are missing a few tacos. I think he is a blithering idiot who managed to get name recognition by plastering it 30' high on some buildings that his daddy's money bought.

Chip-skiff
06-06-2016, 08:29 PM
Mr. Trump has no sense of right and wrong. Rather, he's a tactical thinker, always trying to rig the game in his favor.

My guess on the judge thing is that he knows damn well that Trump U. was a shameless fraud and that he'll lose the class-action suit. So he's laying some PR groundwork, accusing the judge of bias, to fend off eventual criminal charges.

Because (outside the Republican party) fraud is still a crime.

Keith Wilson
06-06-2016, 08:30 PM
Alright. Today it occurs to me that the issue is a very carefully calculated pander to the black vote (with continuing feed for the nativists at the bottom). Is Trump that smart?Sure doesn't look like it. If this is calculation, it sure is well-disguised. As far as I can tell, he just says whatever he thinks will work at the moment, and then an hour or a day or a week later, he says something different. And what he says, whether calculated or spontaneous, gives a picture of the fellow's character that is all too much like turning over a rock. Narcissistic Personality Disorder, or something very like.

Osborne Russell
06-06-2016, 08:50 PM
The trouble is that Trump gets stupid information from people that aren't so smart.


An embattled Donald Trump urgently rallied his most visible supporters to defend his attacks on a federal judge's Mexican ancestry during a conference call on Monday in which he ordered them to question the judge's credibility and impugn reporters as racists.

"We will overcome," Trump said, according to two supporters who were on the call and requested anonymity to share their notes with Bloomberg Politics. "And I’ve always won and I’m going to continue to win. And that’s the way it is."

When former Arizona Governor Jan Brewer interrupted the discussion to inform Trump that his own campaign had asked surrogates to stop talking about the lawsuit in an e-mail on Sunday, Trump repeatedly demanded to know who sent the memo, and immediately overruled his staff.

"Take that order and throw it the hell out," Trump said.

Told the memo was sent by Erica Freeman, a staffer who circulates information to surrogates, Trump said he didn't know her.

"Are there any other stupid letters that were sent to you folks?" Trump said. "That's one of the reasons I want to have this call, because you guys are getting sometimes stupid information from people that aren't so smart."

"I should have won this thing years ago," Trump said on the call about the case, adding that Curiel is a "member of La Raza." Curiel is affiliated with La Raza Lawyers of California, a Latino bar association.

A clearly irritated Trump told his supporters to attack journalists who ask questions about the lawsuit and his comments about the judge.

"The people asking the questions—those are the racists," Trump said. "I would go at 'em."

Suggesting a broader campaign against the media, Trump said the campaign should also actively criticize television reporters. "I'd let them have it," he said, referring to those who Trump portrayed as hypocrites.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-06/trump-orders-surrogates-to-intensify-criticism-of-judge-and-journalists

johnw
06-06-2016, 08:51 PM
Mr. Trump has no sense of right and wrong. Rather, he's a tactical thinker, always trying to rig the game in his favor.

My guess on the judge thing is that he knows damn well that Trump U. was a shameless fraud and that he'll lose the class-action suit. So he's laying some PR groundwork, accusing the judge of bias, to fend off eventual criminal charges.

Because (outside the Republican party) fraud is still a crime.

Oh, I don't think it will help with any potential criminal charges. It might help with his branding, though.

Duncan Gibbs
06-06-2016, 09:27 PM
Alright. Today it occurs to me that the issue is a very carefully calculated pander to the black vote (with continuing feed for the nativists at the bottom). Is Trump that smart?

The relative silence of the black establishment (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?203836-The-Relative-Silence-of-the-Black-Establishment&highlight=) as to this specific identity politics matter, and others preceding it, continues to be one of the more interesting unexamined stories of this campaign season.
You really like those self licking ice-creams, don't you!

Duncan Gibbs
06-06-2016, 09:31 PM
Bluey! Mr Blue!

I really don't have the foggiest of why you give Trump your support. YOU can write and (I assume) talk one hundred thousand times more coherently than Trump can. This:

"Excuse me, I want to build a wall. I mean, I don't think it's very confusing. Has nothing to do with anything except common sense. You know, we have to stop being so politically correct in this country. And we need a little more common sense, John."

... is just a bunch of non-sentences and only-just-sentences strung together that do nothing to answer the question he was actually asked. I seriously doubt Trump would actually know what "identity politics" are, let alone have the vocabulary to place these two words together in the first place. He speaks in almost pure gibberish, only peppering his speech with little obita dicta that reinforce the notion he's a "plane talking" kinda guy. He can't actually form a coherent idea to begin with.

Why on Earth do you think he'll make such a good POTUS?
List some actual reasons and try using bullet points to make them absolutely clear.
I really, really want to read your answers to this this question.

I'm actually interested in why someone, who is as obviously smart as you are, can be swayed by someone I think to be an idiot.

It's truly a mystery to me.

TomF
06-07-2016, 09:21 AM
I really, really want to read your answers to this this question.

I'm actually interested in why someone, who is as obviously smart as you are, can be swayed by someone I think to be an idiot.

It's truly a mystery to me.Politics is not often about "voting the person," nor even about policy positions. Politics is a competition between tribes and tribal allegiances - and I make apologies to folks with actual tribes for the metaphor.

For people other than policy wonks, actual policy positions function mostly as proxies for "tribe." They're boundary markers, showing if you're identifying inside or outside the group. The boundary markers change over time, but the nucleus of "tribe" remains - the real measure of tribal identity is mutual recognition. That is, as Hobbesbawm said about nationalism, people inside the group recognize themselves as being in relationship with others inside the group. That's where the RINO stuff comes from - it's explicitly saying "I don't care how you identify yourself ... I don't recognize you as a member of the tribe."

It used to be that people claimed to "vote the person," but this season's Presidential campaign is putting the lie to that as well. Some will "vote the person," as Romney says he'll do. But many will simply vote the tribe - and the vacuum of personal integrity of a candidate is secondary, even when it's undeniable. Because even a horrible person who you'd never invite to dinner is preferable to a person with integrity who's a member of the other tribe. Identity group bonds are that strong.

The way out is, paradoxically, to do what each party claimed to be doing back in 2008 - to be reaching beyond their individual identity group towards a common shared National identity. At which point, the integrity of the candidate actually means something again. You can "vote the person," because a larger tribe identity took precedence. Of course, it didn't actually work that way in 2008, despite both sides' slogans. If anything, it was the Republican loss under that slogan of "Country First" which sent American politics even more deeply into the partisan abyss. The slogan was a tactic, and the tactic didn't work - revealing that the allegiance really was not to the "country first" thing at all, but to gaining power.

Kevin T
06-07-2016, 09:35 AM
Bluey! Mr Blue!

I really don't have the foggiest of why you give Trump your support. YOU can write and (I assume) talk one hundred thousand times more coherently than Trump can. This:

"Excuse me, I want to build a wall. I mean, I don't think it's very confusing. Has nothing to do with anything except common sense. You know, we have to stop being so politically correct in this country. And we need a little more common sense, John."

... is just a bunch of non-sentences and only-just-sentences strung together that do nothing to answer the question he was actually asked. I seriously doubt Trump would actually know what "identity politics" are, let alone have the vocabulary to place these two words together in the first place. He speaks in almost pure gibberish, only peppering his speech with little obita dicta that reinforce the notion he's a "plane talking" kinda guy. He can't actually form a coherent idea to begin with.

Why on Earth do you think he'll make such a good POTUS?
List some actual reasons and try using bullet points to make them absolutely clear.

This Trump word salad makes me think that Donald might be a graduate of the "SP School of Elocution and Public Speaking" tm.

I hear that W is one of the instructors offering a course titled: "Magnificent Malapropisms and How to Make the Most of Them in Attracting the Unwashed Masses"