Poll:who would you vote for right now

[Twangbanger]

I meant to post this in the "Trump" thread but since you mentioned Curiel, I'll post my thoughts on the Curiel ordeal here. On CNN a few days ago Michael Smirconish, an Attorney himself, said that there is a mechanism to request a judge to recuse himself. I don't recall the name of the mechanism, but if Trump believed that Curiel has a conflict of interest, why hasn't he instructed his lawyers to file it? If his Lawyers really believe that the judge has a conflict of interest, they'd be incompetent not to file it. So why hasn't Team Trump done that? My answer: To me, since I've heard of the lawsuit over Trump University I've thought TU sounds like a scam. I kinda think that Trump believes he will lose and is preparing his supporters with an excuse, that he lost because the judge was biased and not because he was running a scam.

I read an article today that posits two other reasons:

1. The motion to recuse would be certain to fail, because mere membership in an ethnic or religious group is not grounds for a judge's recusal.
2. The filing of any motion to recuse, and especially a baseless one, makes the lawyer filing it "radioactive" to that judge, a consideration if the lawyer intends to practice before him again.

 

[Que]

Would you accept Obama's apparent judgment of them. They are the group to whom he was speaking when he made his infamous 'punish our enemies' speech.

I was not aware this was the group to which he commented about. I didn't even know about his comment, but I'll look it up. Do you agree with him?

 

[Tombs]

White House calls FBI probe into Hillary Clinton's emails a 'criminal investigation' | Daily Mail Online

This is one heck of a mess.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I was not aware this was the group to which he commented about. I didn't even know about his comment, but I'll look it up. Do you agree with him?

How I answer your question depends on which of two question you intend. Am I satisfied that La Raza is an inherently racist group? Yes. I will start with the words of its founder that white people have an obligation to die off, and if they fail to do so, I don't remember the exact turn of phrase, but he declared that killing them is an acceptable alternative. During their field trips which were outside the boundaries of peaceful demonstrations but not quite riots, they would chant things like 'we're taking over'. Given their overt claim to be rightful owners of the territory gained from the Mexican-American war, this sounds to my ear like a threat of a hostile takeover.

The other potential question, the one I rather doubt you intended, heavens no I don't agree with having a president who declares me, among others, an 'enemy' who should be punished by the government for having the audacity to not be a leftist.

 

[BugI02]

I meant to post this in the "Trump" thread but since you mentioned Curiel, I'll post my thoughts on the Curiel ordeal here. On CNN a few days ago Michael Smirconish, an Attorney himself, said that there is a mechanism to request a judge to recuse himself. I don't recall the name of the mechanism, but if Trump believed that Curiel has a conflict of interest, why hasn't he instructed his lawyers to file it? If his Lawyers really believe that the judge has a conflict of interest, they'd be incompetent not to file it. So why hasn't Team Trump done that? My answer: To me, since I've heard of the lawsuit over Trump University I've thought TU sounds like a scam. I kinda think that Trump believes he will lose and is preparing his supporters with an excuse, that he lost because the judge was biased and not because he was running a scam.

Jamil, as I understand it the judge himself rules on the motion for his recusal. So you would need the judge to be willing to admit that he does not feel he can be impartial. Let me know how that snowball fight in hell goes

 

[Que]

How I answer your question depends on which of two question you intend. Am I satisfied that La Raza is an inherently racist group? Yes. I will start with the words of its founder that white people have an obligation to die off, and if they fail to do so, I don't remember the exact turn of phrase, but he declared that killing them is an acceptable alternative. During their field trips which were outside the boundaries of peaceful demonstrations but not quite riots, they would chant things like 'we're taking over'. Given their overt claim to be rightful owners of the territory gained from the Mexican-American war, this sounds to my ear like a threat of a hostile takeover.

The other potential question, the one I rather doubt you intended, heavens no I don't agree with having a president who declares me, among others, an 'enemy' who should be punished by the government for having the audacity to not be a leftist.

I don't agree with killing anyone. What gave you that idea?

 

[BugI02]

How I answer your question depends on which of two question you intend. Am I satisfied that La Raza is an inherently racist group? Yes. I will start with the words of its founder that white people have an obligation to die off, and if they fail to do so, I don't remember the exact turn of phrase, but he declared that killing them is an acceptable alternative. During their field trips which were outside the boundaries of peaceful demonstrations but not quite riots, they would chant things like 'we're taking over'. Given their overt claim to be rightful owners of the territory gained from the Mexican-American war, this sounds to my ear like a threat of a hostile takeover.

The other potential question, the one I rather doubt you intended, heavens no I don't agree with having a president who declares me, among others, an 'enemy' who should be punished by the government for having the audacity to not be a leftist.

Well, we always knew that there would be barbarians at the gates waiting for 'Rome' to falter

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don't agree with killing anyone. What gave you that idea?

I was addressing the positions expressed by LaRaza and Obama. I never would have thought such a thing about you. I understand you both in general nature and in the beliefs you hold well enough to know better than that! I just wasn't absolutely sure which angle with those two you were taking with your question and emphasizing the implications of the connection between the two so far as how it works in practice.

 

[Kutnupe14]

How I answer your question depends on which of two question you intend. Am I satisfied that La Raza is an inherently racist group? Yes. I will start with the words of its founder that white people have an obligation to die off, and if they fail to do so, I don't remember the exact turn of phrase, but he declared that killing them is an acceptable alternative. During their field trips which were outside the boundaries of peaceful demonstrations but not quite riots, they would chant things like 'we're taking over'. Given their overt claim to be rightful owners of the territory gained from the Mexican-American war, this sounds to my ear like a threat of a hostile takeover.

The other potential question, the one I rather doubt you intended, heavens no I don't agree with having a president who declares me, among others, an 'enemy' who should be punished by the government for having the audacity to not be a leftist.

Ok, I hate to rain on this party, but there's a lot of misinformation going on out there. "La Raza," is a term that is widely used in Latino organizations, but does not imply that they are all organized under the same umbrella group. It's use is very similar to the word "Negro." The Negro Leagues had nothing to do with the NAACP or UNCF. They simply contained the word Negro. La Raza is the same.

The founder of La Raza you're speaking of Jose Angel Gutierrez founded the Raza Unidas Party, He had nothing to do with the National Council of La Raza. Curiel, the judge in question, is a member of neither. He is a member of La Raza Lawyers of California, which again, shares no organizational leadership with the previously mentioned groups.

I think it's a fair bet that most people don't understand this, and simply assume that all "La Raza" organizations are under some umbrella, which obviously is false. So essentially, IndyDave, your entire belief is based on bad information given to you either purposefully (which I believe), or due to ignorance.

So, do you still believe that La Raza is a racist organization, or do you recognize that La Raza is more of a neutral term that encompasses lots of ideas, good and bad?

 

[Que]

Ok, I hate to rain on this party, but there's a lot of misinformation going on out there. "La Raza," is a term that is widely used in Latino organizations, but does not imply that they are all organized under the same umbrella group. It's use is very similar to the word "Negro." The Negro Leagues had nothing to do with the NAACP or UNCF. They simply contained the word Negro. La Raza is the same.

The founder of La Raza you're speaking of Jose Angel Gutierrez founded the Raza Unidas Party, He had nothing to do with the National Council of La Raza. Curiel, the judge in question, is a member of neither. He is a member of La Raza Lawyers of California, which again, shares no organizational leadership with the previously mentioned groups.

I think it's a fair bet that most people don't understand this, and simply assume that all "La Raza" organizations are under some umbrella, which obviously is false. So essentially, IndyDave, your entire belief is based on bad information given to you either purposefully (which I believe), or due to ignorance.

So, do you still believe that La Raza is a racist organization, or do you recognize that La Raza is more of a neutral term that encompasses lots of ideas, good and bad?

Thanks for the info. Like I stated, I know nothing about the organization, but I do understand how similar groups have been negatively portrayed in the past, which is why I'm slow to pass any kind of judgment. I believe in groups formed to forward equity, but I would never agree with harming others. I certainly didn't believe the judge would be part of such an organization, but I'm glad you made that crystal clear for us.

 

[zippy23]

its been a few days since i looked at the results....bout 20% for third party. If this translates across the country then Clinton willl be the next president. We can go through is again, just like last election. Romney wasnt perfect, but goodness, we wouldnt have obama. And trump will actually do some things that are awesome for the country. Take a good look at what voting third party would do(at this point.) Third party is helping the republican lose. It always does. And then we'll all be screwed.

 

[Kutnupe14]

its been a few days since i looked at the results....bout 20% for third party. If this translates across the country then Clinton willl be the next president. We can go through is again, just like last election. Romney wasnt perfect, but goodness, we wouldnt have obama. And trump will actually do some things that are awesome for the country. Take a good look at what voting third party would do(at this point.) Third party is helping the republican lose. It always does. And then we'll all be screwed.

Pure conjecture, or speculation, or whatever the lawyery word is.

 

[IndyDave1776]

its been a few days since i looked at the results....bout 20% for third party. If this translates across the country then Clinton willl be the next president. We can go through is again, just like last election. Romney wasnt perfect, but goodness, we wouldnt have obama. And trump will actually do some things that are awesome for the country. Take a good look at what voting third party would do(at this point.) Third party is helping the republican lose. It always does. And then we'll all be screwed.

Pure conjecture, or speculation, or whatever the lawyery word is.

What isn't conjecture is that Hillary has made it abundantly clear that she will do plenty of things which are very deleterious not only to the safety and security of the republic but its continued existence as a free republic.

 

[Hkindiana]

Pure conjecture, or speculation, or whatever the lawyery word is.

But, on the flip side, we KNOW the clintons will do things that are AWESOMELY BAD to this country.

 

[printcraft]

Meanwhile.... hitlary will do things to continue the decline and destruction of this country.

(not conjecture or speculation, ***** is evil)

 

[Que]

Well, after the event on Sunday morning, I've heard the hearts and minds of some who are somewhat closely associated with me (work colleagues and others). I was called a "terrible human being", "gun nut" and accused of "loving to kill things". The fact is, I understand the pain some are feeling, but their pain is no reason to try to harm me. There is no reasoning with some people and if this is how people really feel, if the election were today, Trump would get my vote. I detest the man, but some of these people are just as bad.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What isn't conjecture is that Hillary has made it abundantly clear that she will do plenty of things which are very deleterious not only to the safety and security of the republic but its continued existence as a free republic.

I will not disagree.

 

[Dead Duck]

Well, after the event on Sunday morning, I've heard the hearts and minds of some who are somewhat closely associated with me (work colleagues and others). I was called a "terrible human being", "gun nut" and accused of "loving to kill things". The fact is, I understand the pain some are feeling, but their pain is no reason to try to harm me. There is no reasoning with some people and if this is how people really feel, if the election were today, Trump would get my vote. I detest the man, but some of these people are just as bad.

As a Christian it reminds me when people die in senseless tragedies, especially little ones, people blame God and/or me for believing in a God that would let such things happen. They're just lashing out. I get that. I've lost loved ones to guns, cars, drugs, stupidity, etc... We got through it.

We'll all get through this too.

 

[indyrun]

Trump. A vote for anyone else, or no vote, is a vote for the Hildabeast.

 

[whiskeytangofoxtrot]

I'll write in someone when the time comes.