You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

3
-2

[–] hiphopafrica 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

For the record, I agree that the ties are true and I think the questioning of impartiality is legitimate.

However, that was not the way I heard Trump frame it. He said that it was because he was Mexican and that it would cause conflict due to Trump's building a wall. When asked a follow up of whether a muslim judge should be held in question for comments Trump made he said something along the lines of "Probably, very likely yes." There is definitely egg on his face over this and its his fault.

1
3

[–] Joe_McCarthy [S] 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

That Curiel is of Mexican background is alone enough to reasonably cast suspicion on his conduct in this trial. If a white judge was repeatedly issuing hostile rulings in a similar case against, say, the leader of the New Black Panther Party, and that leader made an issue of the judge being white and thus possibly biased, there wouldn't be anything like the current Trump firestorm.

0
0

[–] Pawn ago 

funny that a mc_carthy is trying to promote mccarthyism on voat. "he has mexican background so that's enough to cast suspicion."

2
-1

[–] hiphopafrica 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

Right but, my point is that the reason this is getting so blown out of proportion is that Trump failed to say anything about prior rulings or affiliations of the judge. He was asked to clarify if he meant that simply because the judge was of Mexican descent, that he would be impartial because of Trump's platform. Trump doubled down, and followed with a triple down when asked about a muslim. No mention of ties to La Raza or any prior cases. I'm not arguing that it wouldn't make him impartial, I'm saying Trump framed it poorly in the interview I heard and this type of response from the media is to be expected.