Trump says Hispanic Americans have an 'inherent conflict'

Post Reply New Topic

Which 18? John Adams did not own any. His son John Quincy Adams did not own any. Lincoln did not own any.

At most 12 of the Presidents through Lincoln could have owned slaves. Who are the other 6

12 Presidents owned slaves, according to Wikipedia. The last President listed was the 18th PRESIDENT, not the 18th President to hold slaves.

Martin Van Buren only owned one slave, who escaped. When found, Van Buren decided to free him. This was long before he became President. He became a Free-Soiler (not quite an Abolitionist) later.

But it doesn't matter. We're talking about 2016. Within a 2016 context, Trump seems like a racist hellion.

As I recall, John Quincy Adams was a fervent abolitionist, who, after his presidency, was elected to the senate, where he fought against slavery. But not in the way that that batsh*t she-idiot Michele Bachmann insists about adams.

According to historians, despite the fact that John Quincy Adams was an anti-slavery agitator in Congress, he wasn't actually an abolitionist. He favored gradual, rather than immediate, abolition.

Perhaps similar to Lincoln's view on it--except Lincoln wasn't as much of an activist as Quincy Adam was.

Hi "K". I would like to try to think "that our level of civilization has increased" as well, but some people's idea of "civilization" is not the same as ours.

When we compare the slaughter of indigenous peoples, say before 1900A.D., with recent atrocities we find people have not improved anything except the efficiency of their killing methods. Yes, it's true we may have more latte's and flowers and big words and organizations, but the millions of poor and innocent people still get plowed under (although the reasoning for this is now couched in different terms). Just watch what's happening to Syrian and Libyan refugees (or the next group of disadvantaged).

Our Great Civilization is (at least) partly made up of smoke, mirrors and crocodile tears I'm afraid. Sorry.

Hillary Clinton is a criminal and corrupt to her core, she is incompetent on top of being tyrant, almost anything you try to smear Trump with can be turned back around on her twofold.

Beyond even this latest nonissue, racial politics and wedge social issues aren't what America cares about right now but rather the economic survival of this country. The Democrats desperately want it to be about that as a distraction from the fact that their own policies then and now ensure minorities total subjugation and dependency for ever, whereas Trump represents a change and an attempt to bring the jobs back. Hillary is a globalist puppet, her husband signed NAFTA and she'll sign the TPP. Her friends make money by moving jobs and bank accounts offshore, they make money by starting wars in countries and selling the government their military industrial product. She is running on a radical open borders anti-2nd amendment platform, she has won the support of Wall Street and big business and has been well compensated for it, she is one of the primary hawkish politicians behind the failed foreign policy of this country. Trump is the better candidate, regardless of rhetoric for everyone.

We have two "real winners" running for the Presidency--EGAD!

I have to be honest I do not understand the tolerance and except acne you all seem to have despite a clear understanding that things aren't good enough. The very thing you fought a war of independence to get away from the rule of a King (the rich and powerful micro minority) is the very thing you now have and seem to tolerate. The top one percent control and dictate political policy. Even your courts are politicised at the high test level. Your politicians lie with no fear of being challenged, your news media is part of the very political process that seeks to maintain control over the majority by the rich. Even when you have at least 80% of people saying that there should be some change to gun laws. The politicians ignore them.

I am European so would be considered liberal/socialist in America but her I have views that are right of our centre. I don't wish to be rude but can someone explain to me how you can tolerate this. America is supposed to be the land of the free, can you see that you are not free if the very democracy that you hold up as an example to the world is run for and by not the people but the powerful minority. I live in a monarchy you it seems have less democratic freedom and a King/Queen by another name.

I was actually referring to America - and the west in general - rather than the whole world.

Ha HA HA I admit I missed that...I'm sure there's a reason for that.

BUT (can't help myself) If we're just talking about the U.S. then I would say there has definitely been a change. I believe the government has taken a page from Great Britain's notebook and, instead of killing the local indigenous people (they only have the dried up desert areas now anyway), we should do all that nasty subjugation and killing as far away from our pampered bodies as possible (that's the elites talking by the way) so as not to disturb our tranquility.

So we participate, arm rebels, bomb and cruise missile from afar. But don't you really think nothing has really changed? The greed and all the rest are still there.

To all the Trump supporters here, I have to ask:
Could Trump ask a Democratic-leaning judge to recuse himself?
A woman judge to recuse herself?
A disabled judge?
A Muslim judge?

He's managed to insult and defame the majority of people in this country (only 30-some-odd percent are white males), so does any defendant get to pick and choose among the judges in hopes of finding one whom he thinks will give him a 'fair' (read: 'biased in my favor') trial? If so, what about the rights of the plaintiffs?

Sure, things aren't perfect. But I also think things are getting better than what they had been.

Just out of curiosity: I've heard Trump accuse this judge of bias, but I don't remember him saying he should be replaced. Where did I miss this? (By the way. It isn't unheard of for attorneys to try to get a judge assigned who would be more likely to render a favorable verdict in their favor. Why do you suppose this is? )

For who "K"? Do you mean for the deluded citizens of this country because they are not privy to the details of terrible killing and destruction? This is exactly the non-reaction our rulers have hoped for. At least there is not a full fledged World War; that's an improvement.

If you close your eyes to relax next, close your eyes and try to imagine the life of the women and children as they try to float across the Mediterranean and all the while hoping your children won't drown. Their suffering is indescribable. If you can do this successfully, and understand their suffering is the same as ours, I think it may change your mind.

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/04/480714972 ... gainst-him

quote:
"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."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/08/politics/ ... index.html
quote:
"For example, in a 1986 case, Baltimore defense attorney Paul Evans was banned from the court and recommended for disbarment after he complained in a letter that the judge in his case "either was grossly incompetent or biased in favor" of what he called "the Jewish firm" involved in the proceedings.
An appeals court upheld the punishment, saying the letter was "undignified, discourteous, and degrading" and that Evans never demonstrated the judge's incompetence or bias using examples or evidence.
And in 1996, attorneys Larry Klayman and Paul Orfanedes questioned the fairness of U.S. District Court Judge Denny Chin. They pointed out in a letter that the judge was an appointee of President Bill Clinton and an Asian-American, who they claimed could be biased due to Klayman's involvement in litigation against Democratic donor John Huang and other Asian-Americans.
Chin said to Klayman, "You asked questions of the Court, at least in part, because of my race?"
"In part," Klayman responded. "I, for instance, would not sit as a Jewish American on a case that involved a Palestinian."
Chin said the question was "offensive." He ordered Klayman and Orfanedes never to appear before him again, and to notify any other judges they appeared before that they had been sanctioned.
An appeals court upheld the punishment in 1998, saying, "A suggestion that a judge cannot administer the law fairly because of the judge's racial and ethnic heritage is extremely serious, and should not be made without a factual foundation going well beyond the judge's membership in a particular racial or ethnic group.""

Last edited by LKL on 09 Jun 2016, 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You missed it at 3:27 - 4:00.



Here is a transcript, BTW.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... cg.02.html

Oh, and in case you missed it: He's building a wall, OK? He's building a wall...