[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[mustafur]

Sure I accept La Raza is this or that, but Trump himself has said that there is also another reason(the judge having Mexican heritage), to reject that is to reject what he is saying from his own mouth

In his own words, a Mexican and or Muslim judge is a conflict of interest given his platform.

Is this not confirmation of Racism and bigotry from his own damn mouth?

 

[TenEightyOne]

La Raza wasn't established in 1968, but rather in 1963 under the name of National Organization for Mexican American Services.

You're wrong. La Raza was established in 1968. The previous organisation was indeed established in '63, they make no secret of that.

La Raza refused to accept non-Hispanic issues until 1979.

If you mean that they didn't make advocacy for non-Hispanic issues... why would they? That's their raison d'etre. That's not to say that affiliates didn't continue to work on non-Hispanic cases, they always did and always have.

La Raza is entirely funded by the Federal Government since 1980.

Wrong. They receive Federal funding, that much is true. They still receive funding from their founding funder (The Ford Foundation) and from their own investments and lending partners (including Bank of America).

La Raza should be considered a lobbyist group since no later than 1996 to lobby state and local officials into the distribution of welfare funds.

So what? One of America's loudest lobbyists is running for President right now, or didn't you notice?

In his own words, a Mexican and or Muslim judge is a conflict of interest given his platform.

Is this not confirmation of Racism and bigotry from his own damn mouth?

Yes. Yes it is.

In other Presidential Election news; Clinton gains the Democratic nomination.

 

[mustafur]

In other Presidential Election news; Clinton gains the Democratic nomination.

Not correct, convention hasn't started and Sanders hasn't dropped out.

 

[ryzno]

I'll confirm Ten's claim, heard it on the radio about 10 minutes ago. She has the number of delegates needed.

 

[mustafur]

I'll confirm Ten's claim, heard it on the radio about 10 minutes ago. She has the number of delegates needed.

Not pledged, she only reaches it when they count super delegates that can't vote till the convention(and can change their vote any time since they haven't voted).

 

[dylansan]

That number includes superdelegates, who are not pledged and may switch their vote at the convention. Which they're unlikely to do, unless something unprecedented happens (which is certainly possible).

So yes, she's basically won, but it's worth paying attention to what happens next, because she might manage to lose it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yes, I should have been more clear, apologies.

In other other Presidential Election news; Clinton is arrested for drink driving in California. A different Clinton, but the timing is potentially bad.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Sure I accept La Raza is this or that, but Trump himself has said that there is also another reason(the judge having Mexican heritage), to reject that is to reject what he is saying from his own mouth

In his own words, a Mexican and or Muslim judge is a conflict of interest given his platform.

Is this not confirmation of Racism and bigotry from his own damn mouth?

The Supreme Court of the United States seems to believe that the colour of a juror's skin is relevant to the outcome of a trial, why not the colour of a judge's skin or their ethnic background? If you were on trial for the murder of a Mormon Minister and the judge was a Mormon Minister, do you think your lawyer would ask the judge to recuse his or her self? Would that make you a racist or bigot or whatever the appropriate term is?

 

[Tornado]

Yes, I should have been more clear, apologies.

In other other Presidential Election news; Clinton is arrested for drink driving in California. A different Clinton, but the timing is potentially bad.

Was he drinking Billy Beer?

 

[Danoff]

The Supreme Court of the United States seems to believe that the colour of a juror's skin is relevant to the outcome of a trial, why not the colour of a judge's skin or their ethnic background? If you were on trial for the murder of a Mormon Minister and the judge was a Mormon Minister, do you think your lawyer would ask the judge to recuse his or her self? Would that make you a racist or bigot or whatever the appropriate term is?

Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative and the only black member in the court, voted against Monday's decision.

He was the only dissent. Usually he's right too.

 

[mustafur]

The Supreme Court of the United States seems to believe that the colour of a juror's skin is relevant to the outcome of a trial, why not the colour of a judge's skin or their ethnic background? If you were on trial for the murder of a Mormon Minister and the judge was a Mormon Minister, do you think your lawyer would ask the judge to recuse his or her self? Would that make you a racist or bigot or whatever the appropriate term is?

But Trump isn't on trial for a Wall it's about his so-called ''university''.

 

[Sanji Himura]

But Trump isn't on trial for a Wall it's about his so-called ''university''.

That's true, but he deserves a fair one regardless.

@TenEightyOne : OP updated with the Clinton nomination.

 

[mustafur]

That's true, but he deserves a fair one regardless.

@TenEightyOne : OP updated with the Clinton nomination.

Clinton isn't nominated yet.

 

[Johnnypenso]

But Trump isn't on trial for a Wall it's about his so-called ''university''.

I don't see why the subject of the trial makes any difference if we're talking about potential bias.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Clinton isn't nominated yet.

Be realistic here. The whole thing was to have Hillary be the nominee by coronation. It was Sanders that didn't know when to quit when the writing was on the wall.

 

[mustafur]

Be realistic here. The whole thing was to have Hillary be the nominee by coronation. It was Sanders that didn't know when to quit when the writing was on the wall.

She is under investigation by the FBI there is still a chance that she gets indicted whilst low before the convention, however it's highly likely she will get the nomination.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I don't think anything in the OP should be updated unless it's 100% final.

 

[Touring Mars]

That said, Bernie cannot realistically overtake Clinton now since California is a proportional primary and not Winner-Takes-All... if it were WTA, then Bernie could still have surpassed Clinton in terms of hard delegates, but then Clinton would still win because of her superdelegates - unless they switched on account of Bernie winning the most delegates in the primary race. It all seems a bit of a farce, but then again Clinton is quite far ahead in terms of her share of the popular vote, and so it is hard to see a way back for Bernie. If Clinton wins CA, then it really is game over for Bernie.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I don't think anything in the OP should be updated unless it's 100% final.

Some perspective from NBC:

"Secretary Clinton does not have and will not have the requisite number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination. She will be dependent on superdelegates who do not vote until July 25 and who can change their minds between now and then," he [Sanders Spox Michael Briggs] wrote.

"Our job from now until the convention is to convince those superdelegates that Bernie is by far the strongest candidate against Donald Trump," he added.

While Sanders is correct that superdelegates can switch their votes, there is no precedent for a huge number of superdelegates' switching sides. In the 2008 Democratic race, when superdelegates made up 20 percent of the delegate pool, no more than about 30 switched their support from Clinton to Barack Obama. What's more, Obama then led among pledged delegates even when superdelegates weren't included in the total count.

Sanders, on the other hands, trails Clinton significantly among pledged delegates, as well as in the total delegate count.

Sanders' continued objections to party rules presents a maddening problem for Clinton, who has already sought to focus her energies on the general election matchup against Donald Trump.

And just for the record, Hillary didn't just pick up Superdelegates to clinch the nomination. She picked up 46 Pledged delegates to aid her. Why Sanders is insisting that pledged delegates are the only thing that matters is beyond me, especially on the democratic ticket.

 

[Dennisch]

She's going to get the nomination and then she's off to prison.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Some perspective from NBC:



And just for the record, Hillary didn't just pick up Superdelegates to clinch the nomination. She picked up 46 Pledged delegates to aid her. Why Sanders is insisting that pledged delegates are the only thing that matters is beyond me, especially on the democratic ticket.

Point is, until he announces that he's dropping out or it's 100% official she has clinched (it's not), then speculation should not feed the OP.

 

[Dennisch]

An even better point would be for him to run as an independent and make the popcorn industry explode.

 

[FoolKiller]

An even better point would be for him to run as an independent and make the popcorn industry explode.

This would be interesting, as some polls already show Johnson taking as many votes from Clinton as Trump.

I don't think Sanders would do it though. He'd rather Clinton won due to a rigged system than have Trump win because he wanted to give his supporters a voice.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I don't see why the subject of the trial makes any difference if we're talking about potential bias.

Absolutely. The worry in this case is that you and others seem to be implying that a Mexican judge would be automatically biased against Trump and would fail to correctly weigh the case. That seems strange. Do you have the same fear about Black/Asian judges?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Absolutely. The worry in this case is that you and others seem to be implying that a Mexican judge would be automatically biased against Trump and would fail to correctly weigh the case. That seems strange. Do you have the same fear about Black/Asian judges?

Nice try. I think Alberto R. Gonzales who served as White House counsel and U.S. attorney general in the George W. Bush administration and is the dean and Doyle Rogers Distinguished Professor of law at Belmont University College of Law in Nashville, Tenn. sums it up nicely:

For this reason, ethics codes for judges — including the federal code of conduct governing Curiel — require not only that judges actually be impartial, but that they avoid even the “appearance of impropriety.” That appearance typically is measured from the standpoint of a reasonable litigant.

But there may be other factors to consider in determining whether Trump’s concerns about getting an impartial trial are reasonable. Curiel is, reportedly, a member of a group called La Raza Lawyers of San Diego. Trump’s aides, meanwhile, have indicated that they believe Curiel is a member of the National Council of La Raza, a vocal advocacy organization that has vigorously condemned Trump and his views on immigration. The two groups are unaffiliated, and Curiel is not a member of NCLR. But Trump may be concerned that the lawyers’ association or its members represent or support the other advocacy organization.

Coupled with that question is the fact that in 2014, when he certified the class-action lawsuit against Trump, Curiel appointed the Robbins Geller law firm to represent plaintiffs. Robbins Geller has paid $675,000 in speaking fees since 2009 to Trump’s likely opponent, Hillary Clinton, and to her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Curiel appointed the firm in the case before Trump entered the presidential race, but again, it might not be unreasonable for a defendant in Trump’s position to wonder who Curiel favors in the presidential election. These circumstances, while not necessarily conclusive, at least raise a legitimate question to be considered. Regardless of the way Trump has gone about raising his concerns over whether he’s getting a fair trial, none of us should dismiss those concerns out of hand without carefully examining how a defendant in his position might perceive them — and we certainly should not dismiss them for partisan political reasons.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Nice try. I think Alberto R. Gonzales who served as White House counsel and U.S. attorney general in the George W. Bush administration and is the dean and Doyle Rogers Distinguished Professor of law at Belmont University College of Law in Nashville, Tenn. sums it up nicely:

As your links point out there is no ethical problem.

Doesn't it strike you as odd the Irma Gonzales has stood for Trump University in pursuing the reverse-defamation claim? One would expect the same anti-Trump fervour from that judge, no?

As for the class actions; the State of New York has actually brought one of the actions while another was brought by Cohen and the third by Low. Does it worry you that Curiel didn't appoint all the lawyers as your source claims? Besides, Curiel isn't part of La Raza as your own source notes - and you've still to show that affiliation with an advocacy is somehow legally unethical or unviable.

The appearance of impropriety only exists here if one simply cannot trust those dang Mexicans.

 

[TeamEdge702]

Is anybody else as shocked as I am that we basically have to choose between Hillary and Trump in November?

 

[CodeRedR51]

Is anybody else as shocked as I am that we basically have to choose between Hillary and Trump in November?

Maybe you, not I.

 

[Dennisch]

Is anybody else as shocked as I am that we basically have to choose between Hillary and Trump in November?

There are other names available.

 

[mustafur]

A lying criminal or a criminal liar.

The general election in a nutshell.