Trump Decides to Talk About Judge Curiel Again

 

Remember six hours ago when Donald Trump said he wouldn’t comment any further on Judge Gonzalo Curiel and the Trump University lawsuit? Well … he’s talking about him again:

Trump admitted to host Sean Hannity he does not care about the judge’s nationality, a significant walkback from comments made over the past few days that U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel could not oversee his case because of his Mexican ethnicity, even though he was born in the U.S.

“It’s sad,” Trump said, referring to how some have “misconstrued” his views on the judge. “I don’t care where the judge comes from. I just want to get a fair shake. We’ve had unfair opinions coming down and you wonder, what is going on?”

Don’t worry, GOP. I’m sure the new presidential Trump will be here any day now.

There are 62 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  1. Jamie Lockett Inactive

    LOL and thus goes the anti-PC Champion.

    • #1
    • June 7, 2016, at 9:07 PM PDT
    • Like
  2. Dave Sussman Contributor

    You gotta feel for the man… I mean, it’s just not fair that people can hear the words coming out of his head.

    • #2
    • June 7, 2016, at 9:09 PM PDT
    • Like
  3. Herbert defender of the Realm,… Inactive

    Just think what the adults advising him must go through everytime he gets close to a microphone….

    • #3
    • June 7, 2016, at 9:19 PM PDT
    • Like
  4. DocJay Inactive

    I’m shocked he couldn’t keep his mouth shut and I’m glad he’s not.

    I am concerned my candidate is not even close to a gentleman on so many levels but I have far greater worries.

    We need to bust some huevos to make an omelet out of this theoretical melting pot of ours. La Raza and all identity groups are the evil which prevent this.

    • #4
    • June 7, 2016, at 9:36 PM PDT
    • Like
  5. Lash LaRoche Inactive

    DocJay:I’m shocked he couldn’t keep his mouth shut and I’m glad he’s not.

    I am concerned my candidate is not even close to a gentleman on so many levels but I have far greater worries.

    We need to bust some huevos to make an omelet out of this theoretical melting pot of ours. La Raza and all identity groups are the evil which prevent this.

    Yep. Fight fire with fire.

    • #5
    • June 7, 2016, at 9:41 PM PDT
    • Like
  6. Could Be Anyone Member

    Jamie Lockett:LOL and thus goes the anti-PC Champion self proclaimed and in name only anti PC champion.

    Fixed it for you.

    • #6
    • June 7, 2016, at 9:43 PM PDT
    • Like
  7. Jamie Lockett Inactive

    Mike LaRoche:

    DocJay:I’m shocked he couldn’t keep his mouth shut and I’m glad he’s not.

    I am concerned my candidate is not even close to a gentleman on so many levels but I have far greater worries.

    We need to bust some huevos to make an omelet out of this theoretical melting pot of ours. La Raza and all identity groups are the evil which prevent this.

    Yep. Fight fire with fire.

    Abandon all principles, ye who side with Trump!

    • #7
    • June 7, 2016, at 9:43 PM PDT
    • Like
  8. Could Be Anyone Member

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.: “It’s sad,” Trump said, referring to how some have “misconstrued” his views on the judge. “I don’t care where the judge comes from. I just want to get a fair shake. We’ve had unfair opinions coming down and you wonder, what is going on?”

    Like so many things with trump its only fair if he wins. If he loses it is automatically unfair. Sounds alot like another candidate that is the presumed nominee of her party, but then again they are both leftists so its never fair when they lose. Its only fair, just, glorious, right side of history, (insert nice adjective) when they win of course.

    All else are by fact of not supporting them bad for being sexist, racist, establishment, cuck, (insert negative term here).

    • #8
    • June 7, 2016, at 9:46 PM PDT
    • Like
  9. DocJay Inactive

    I am not here to defend an old vulgar New Yorker’s choice of words as it reflects poorly on him. As the cannibals said,”I come to curry Caeser not to braise him”

    What I am here to do is point out an intellectual disconnect about what is really dangerous. A Trump presidency can be survived. La Raza cannot. It represents a perpetual victimhood and welfare enslavement of a vast and growing race ( with so much potential to make Anerica better ) in our country.

    • #9
    • June 7, 2016, at 9:47 PM PDT
    • Like
  10. Jamie Lockett Inactive

    DocJay: A Trump presidency can be survived. La Raza cannot.

    You concede that some of us don’t agree with that particular formulation, right?

    • #10
    • June 7, 2016, at 9:50 PM PDT
    • Like
  11. DocJay Inactive

    Jamie Lockett:

    DocJay: A Trump presidency can be survived. La Raza cannot.

    You concede that some of us don’t agree with that particular formulation, right?

    Of course, it’s a pretty common belief here that Trump is the stay puff destroyer of our campfire ghost stories. Why else would 90% of the editors and contributors be covering this judge event like a car intentionally barreling in to an orphanage yet minimizing the consequences of anti-White hate groups institutionalized in government and academia?

    • #11
    • June 7, 2016, at 9:56 PM PDT
    • Like
  12. Could Be Anyone Member

    DocJay:I am not here to defend an old vulgar New Yorker’s choice of words as it reflects poorly on him. As the cannibals said,”I come to curry Caeser not to braise him”

    What I am here to do is point out an intellectual disconnect about what is really dangerous. A Trump presidency can be survived. La Raza cannot. It represents a perpetual victimhood and welfare enslavement of a vast and growing race ( with so much potential to make Anerica better ) in our country.

    The only time trump would care for La Raza is if it hurts his wealth or prestige. Otherwise he could care less. If it was true that he actually cared to defeat the inaccurate and racist philosophy and rhetoric of La Raza then he would have been fighting them at least in words for decades. I doubt such a record exists.

    He only cares about alleged racism from latinos now because it threatens to derail him. If a racist latino judge had ruined a competitor of his a decade ago in New York on false charges he would not care.

    Both La Raza and trump are about acquiring power for its own sake and using it against their enemies. They are both wrong and I wish they both lose.

    • #12
    • June 7, 2016, at 9:58 PM PDT
    • Like
  13. Jamie Lockett Inactive

    DocJay:

    Jamie Lockett:

    DocJay: A Trump presidency can be survived. La Raza cannot.

    You concede that some of us don’t agree with that particular formulation, right?

    Of course, it’s a pretty common belief here that Trump is the stay puff destroyer of our campfire ghost stories. Why else would 90% of the editors and contributors be covering this judge event like a car intentionally barreling in to an orphanage yet minimizing the consequences of anti-White hate groups institutionalized in government and academia?

    That’s a rather remarkable formulation. Which editors and contributors do you think are “minimizing the consequences of anti-White hate groups institutionalized in government and academia”?

    • #13
    • June 7, 2016, at 9:59 PM PDT
    • Like
  14. DocJay Inactive


    Of course they’re both wrong. Trump is wrong about so many darn things it makes my head explode. I just have different priorities than some here and Scotus is the top 1-10.

    • #14
    • June 7, 2016, at 10:03 PM PDT
    • Like
  15. Could Be Anyone Member

    DocJay:



    Of course they’re both wrong. Trump is wrong about so many darn things it makes my head explode. I just have different priorities than some here and Scotus is the top 1-10.

    This coming from the same trump which picks scotus appointments who mock him and supports candidates which lose their primaries (and run literally counter positions on issues he campaigned on like immigration; he said she was strong on the border and she defended Barack’s executive actions by stopping congressional action against them by voting with Democrats)?

    You really think trump cares to put conservatives in SCOTUS? Pardon me for thinking that is delusional with good intent. Hope is very important, but even hope fades. Its far better to seek alternative solutions now than to give in to trump.

    • #15
    • June 7, 2016, at 10:07 PM PDT
    • Like
  16. DocJay Inactive

    Jamie Lockett:

    DocJay:

    Jamie Lockett:

    DocJay: A Trump presidency can be survived. La Raza cannot.

    You concede that some of us don’t agree with that particular formulation, right?

    Of course, it’s a pretty common belief here that Trump is the stay puff destroyer of our campfire ghost stories. Why else would 90% of the editors and contributors be covering this judge event like a car intentionally barreling in to an orphanage yet minimizing the consequences of anti-White hate groups institutionalized in government and academia?

    That’s a rather remarkable formulation. Which editors and contributors do you think are “minimizing the consequences of anti-White hate groups institutionalized in government and academia”?

    I’ve read them all the last few days. I’d say Tom Meyer, Richard Elstein, and Claire have the more obvious examples. They have differing opinions about the significances than I do. I could easily find quotes but I’m going to rub someone’s feet for a while.

    • #16
    • June 7, 2016, at 10:08 PM PDT
    • Like
  17. DocJay Inactive

    Could Be Anyone:

    DocJay:



    Of course they’re both wrong. Trump is wrong about so many darn things it makes my head explode. I just have different priorities than some here and Scotus is the top 1-10.

    This coming from the same trump which picks scotus appointments who mock him and supports candidates which lose their primaries (and run literally counter positions on issues he campaigned on like immigration; he said she was strong on the border and she defended Barack’s executive actions by stopping congressional action against them by voting with Democrats)?

    You really think trump cares to put conservatives in SCOTUS? Pardon me for thinking that is delusional with good intent. Hope is very important, but even hope fades. Its far better to seek alternative solutions now than to give in to trump.

    I believe Trump has quite a feral instinct for many selfish things and I’m counting on his instinct for self-preservation regarding not lying to the millions of NRA members. Goodnight gentlemen. Goodnight moon. Goodnight mush. Goodnight old lady whispering hush. ;-) ( a children’s book lest you take that wrongly )

    • #17
    • June 7, 2016, at 10:13 PM PDT
    • Like
  18. Martel Member

    Jamie Lockett:

    Mike LaRoche:

    DocJay:I’m shocked he couldn’t keep his mouth shut and I’m glad he’s not.

    I am concerned my candidate is not even close to a gentleman on so many levels but I have far greater worries.

    We need to bust some huevos to make an omelet out of this theoretical melting pot of ours. La Raza and all identity groups are the evil which prevent this.

    Yep. Fight fire with fire.

    Abandon all principles, ye who side with Trump!

    One of my principles is actually accomplishing something beyond patting myself on the back for how morally superior I am.

    “Never mind that my country is being torn apart and my children will have a living standard in the toilet. Who cares that those with sense and decency gets smacked down by identity politics and branded as ‘racist’ no matter what they say or do. Ignore that Western Civilization is being routinely mocked and my feeble attempts to correct the damage they do go nowhere. Who gives a damn about what actually happens in the real world. I’m principled!”

    • #18
    • June 7, 2016, at 10:13 PM PDT
    • Like
  19. TKC1101 Inactive

    Could Be Anyone: The only time trump would care for La Raza is if it hurts his wealth or prestige. Otherwise he could care less.

    You speak with such certainty, it is as if you had first hand knowledge of the man.

    You know his motivations and are able to predict behavior to a very precise degree.

    • #19
    • June 7, 2016, at 10:17 PM PDT
    • Like
  20. Martel Member

    TKC1101:

    Could Be Anyone: The only time trump would care for La Raza is if it hurts his wealth or prestige. Otherwise he could care less.

    You speak with such certainty, it is as if you had first hand knowledge of the man.

    You know his motivations and are able to predict behavior to a very precise degree.

    Yet simultaneously we have no idea what he’d do as president.

    • #20
    • June 7, 2016, at 10:18 PM PDT
    • Like
  21. Could Be Anyone Member

    DocJay:I believe Trump has quite a feral instinct for many selfish things and I’m counting on his instinct for self-preservation regarding not lying to the millions of NRA members. Goodnight gentlemen. Goodnight moon. Goodnight mush. Goodnight old lady whispering hush. ;-) ( a children’s book lest you take that wrongly )

    Coming from a man with an entourage that has guards? America has no doubt seen several candidates and presidents assassinated. One of the reasons why is because those candidates/presidents didn’t think it was likely to happen.

    I doubt that trump, a man who has seen business after business fail under him from trump steaks to trump airlines, is thinking of angry NRA members. As a matter of fact in proportion to the entire population NRA isn’t that large (not to discount their influence) but NRA influence is generally stuck to protecting the right to self defense with a firearm.

    The NRA doesn’t really care if trump continues to push for tariffs and other horrendous over regulation and taxation (or does nothing against the leftist culture war). Even then if you really think he is scared for self preservation then think about his comments on ordering soldiers to commit war crimes. If he will have US soldiers gun down a little Arab girl for simply being related to a terrorist then what makes you think he would bat an eyelash for seeing an NRA member get shot for being a “deviant”.

    • #21
    • June 7, 2016, at 10:20 PM PDT
    • Like
  22. TKC1101 Inactive

    What shocked me was how fast the stalwarts of the GOP immediately began spouting Hillary campaign commercials as if on cue.

    As they behave in the past, it seems they shall continue.

    I would not want a single one covering my six in a tough situation.

    Crapweasels.

    • #22
    • June 7, 2016, at 10:21 PM PDT
    • Like
  23. Could Be Anyone Member

    TKC1101:

    Could Be Anyone: The only time trump would care for La Raza is if it hurts his wealth or prestige. Otherwise he could care less.

    You speak with such certainty, it is as if you had first hand knowledge of the man.

    You know his motivations and are able to predict behavior to a very precise degree.

    Its as if there is a record of him doing literally nothing about the issue till now while supporting dozens of leftist candidates that sung the multiculturalism hymns prior to this event.

    Its called inductive reasoning. The only time trump cares about anything is when it benefits or harms himself personally.

    Martel:

    TKC1101:

    Could Be Anyone: The only time trump would care for La Raza is if it hurts his wealth or prestige. Otherwise he could care less.

    You speak with such certainty, it is as if you had first hand knowledge of the man.

    You know his motivations and are able to predict behavior to a very precise degree.

    Yet simultaneously we have no idea what he’d do as president.

    No, that is what his sympathizers and supporters bring up when one brings up his record. I don’t buy that pitiless defense. We have an idea of what he desires and does.

    • #23
    • June 7, 2016, at 10:23 PM PDT
    • Like
  24. TKC1101 Inactive

    Jamie Lockett: Abandon all principles, ye who side with Trump!

    Jamie, did it ever occur to you that we have other principles that you do not perceive? That there are things that must be changed and this is not a debate but an actual conflict, a real struggle of power, with actual consequences?

    I understand you adhere to your principles and this is not your fight. Fine.

    Do us the courtesy of accepting we are differently principled in our way. Continuing to call me unprincipled is not the way to civil conversation.

    • #24
    • June 7, 2016, at 10:28 PM PDT
    • Like
  25. Martel Member

    Could Be Anyone:

    TKC1101:

    Could Be Anyone: The only time trump would care for La Raza is if it hurts his wealth or prestige. Otherwise he could care less.

    You speak with such certainty, it is as if you had first hand knowledge of the man.

    You know his motivations and are able to predict behavior to a very precise degree.

    Its as if there is a record of him doing literally nothing about the issue till now while supporting dozens of leftist candidates that sung the multiculturalism hymns prior to this event.

    Its called inductive reasoning. The only time trump cares about anything is when it benefits or harms himself personally.

    Martel:

    TKC1101:

    Could Be Anyone: The only time trump would care for La Raza is if it hurts his wealth or prestige. Otherwise he could care less.

    You speak with such certainty, it is as if you had first hand knowledge of the man.

    You know his motivations and are able to predict behavior to a very precise degree.

    Yet simultaneously we have no idea what he’d do as president.

    No, that is what his sympathizers and supporters bring up when one brings up his record. I don’t buy that pitiless defense. We have an idea of what he desires and does.

    So those claims of “we have no idea what kind of SCOTUS judges he’ll support” come exclusively from Trump supporters?

    • #25
    • June 7, 2016, at 10:29 PM PDT
    • Like
  26. James Lileks Contributor

    DocJay: We need to bust some huevos to make an omelet out of this theoretical melting pot of ours. La Raza and all identity groups are the evil which prevent this.

    What sort of egg-busting is practical, though? Some might want to subject them to IRS scrutiny – hey, turnabout, fair play, and all that. One can say “when we’re in power, we’re going to use the instruments of the state to punish our enemies,” but then We are Them, which seems a sad end to the movement.

    The culture has to change. Identity politics has to be seen as socially disrespectful, divisive, antithetical to the American ideal – a damned tall order. Given the lazy reflexive leftism of the media, which still thrills to the old progressive narratives, the narrative juice will always be on the side of the Dispossessed. (Everything is always Attica or Stonewall or the Grape Boycott.) It will require a charismatic politician who is from a group inclined to identity politics, but champions a unifying narrative.

    The alternative is all against all, and while some seem to welcome that – let’s get it all out once and for all – does anyone really want to look around at my friends and co-workers and think I have to chose?

    • #26
    • June 7, 2016, at 10:31 PM PDT
    • Like
  27. Martel Member

    TKC1101:

    Jamie Lockett: Abandon all principles, ye who side with Trump!

    Jamie, did it ever occur to you that we have other principles that you do not perceive? That there are things that must be changed and this is not a debate but an actual conflict, a real struggle of power, with actual consequences?

    I understand you adhere to your principles and this is not your fight. Fine.

    Do us the courtesy of accepting we are differently principled in our way. Continuing to call me unprincipled is not the way to civil conversation.

    I’m starting to think that one of the biggest divides here is whether or not somebody has a sense of urgency about what’s going on. Some people seem to think we could endure another 4-8 years of a President who’s consistently leftist on every issue like it’s just another bump in the road and blithely find ourselves back in power in 2020 and gradually compromise our way to balancing the budget by 2112 and it will all be okay.

    If we get another leftist SCOTUS justice, we’re screwed–two more and it’s over. That could happen with Trump–it WILL happen with Hillary.

    But never mind that. Principle!

    • #27
    • June 7, 2016, at 10:34 PM PDT
    • Like
  28. TKC1101 Inactive

    James Lileks:

    DocJay: We need to bust some huevos to make an omelet out of this theoretical melting pot of ours. La Raza and all identity groups are the evil which prevent this.

    What sort of egg-busting is practical, though? Some might want to subject them to IRS scrutiny – hey, turnabout, fair play, and all that. One can say “when we’re in power, we’re going to use the instruments of the state to punish our enemies,” but then We are Them, which seems a sad end to the movement.

    The culture has to change. Identity politics has to be seen as socially disrespectful, divisive, antithetical to the American ideal – a damned tall order. Given the lazy reflexive leftism of the media, which still thrills to the old progressive narratives, the narrative juice will always be on the side of the Dispossessed. (Everything is always Attica or Stonewall or the Grape Boycott.) It will require a charismatic politician who is from a group inclined to identity politics, but champions a unifying narrative.

    The alternative is all against all, and while some seem to welcome that – let’s get it all out once and for all – does anyone really want to look around at my friends and co-workers and think I have to chose?

    For one, we can stop shoveling money and jobs to these groups out of the federal treasury. A fair amount of their activity is taxpayer funded.

    We can clean house in the executive branch to remove employees whose main job is the care and feeding of such groups.

    ‘We can then get the DOJ to enforce existing laws on racketeering for the hustle these groups use to shakedown corporations for donations. If it was anyone else, it would be called fraud or bunko.

    For petes sake stop acting as if our only weapon is to drop an illegal nuke. That only tells me there is no desire to stop them.

    • #28
    • June 7, 2016, at 10:37 PM PDT
    • Like
  29. Could Be Anyone Member

    Martel:So those claims of “we have no idea what kind of SCOTUS judges he’ll support” come exclusively from Trump supporters?

    The claim of “we don’t know what trump will do thus one cannot evaluate trump’s political philosophy or actions” comes from trump supporters and sympathizers when one critiques his record.

    In relation to trump’s list of SCOTUS “appointments” we have seen trump’s actions leading up to this point. Where was he when previous conservative SCOTUS members were replaced with leftists? He never made any overtures to such a notion of a conservative SCOTUS till such became a sticking point with conservative detractors (when others like Cruz and Rubio had already made clear statements of supporting a conservative SCOTUS long before).

    Again trump showed that when his prestige and wealth was threatened he began to “talk” about the issue. As we have seen with the primary race in North Carolina he doesn’t actually care for the consistency of the candidates he supports.

    A candidate only caring for his own power, prestige, and wealth will always support leftist policy regardless of its nominating supreme court justices or attempting to use executive orders. trump will advance the left, his “ascendancy” is a proof of how successful the left has been in the culture even if trump could only win with a 40% coalition containing numerous independents and democrats (so the majority of Republicans didn’t reach a party consensus) in the Republican Primary.

    • #29
    • June 7, 2016, at 10:39 PM PDT
    • Like
  30. TKC1101 Inactive

    Could Be Anyone: A candidate only caring for his own power, prestige, and wealth will always support leftist policy regardless of its nominating supreme court justices or attempting to use executive orders. trump will advance the left, his “ascendancy” is a proof of how successful the left has been in the culture even if trump could only win with a 40% coalition containing numerous independents and democrats (so the majority of Republicans didn’t reach a party consensus) in the Republican Primary.

    Your prediction is duly noted and posted. We can revisit when appropriate.

    • #30
    • June 7, 2016, at 10:42 PM PDT
    • Like
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3