Comment by minimaximus | Hacker News Reader

Comment by minimaximus | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Nice try, but you're defending the indefensible. You're arguing semantics when it's very clear what Trump means by his words, that he repeats in different sentences and occasions. What's the difference between what he actually said regarding the judge in his case and your 'clarification'? it's the same thing.

You also conveniently ignored the fact that Trump wants to ban about 1.2 billion people from entering the US because of their religion, and treat the Muslims already in the US as a fifth column similar to what the Nazis did with the Jews. How long before the frothing-in-the-mouth, 'patriotic', armed Trump goons commit a Kristallnacht against Muslims in the US? this is exactly where we're heading with a Trump presidency.

Frankly, it's disappointing that anyone with a sliver of intelligence can be fooled by this dangerous, reckless, and divisive figure. A figure that has made racism and misogyny acceptable to the masses, and, in the ominous words of the future dictator: "racial profiling is not the worst thing to do".

> You also conveniently ignored the fact that Trump wants to ...

I didn't ignore it, nobody even mentioned. Every argument should stand on its own, and be built on facts and logic.

Tossing in words like Nazis, frothing-in-the-mouth, dangerous, fool, racism, misogyny, and dictator are all unrelated buzzwords.

If you think this judge situation is so vile and leads to racist dictatorship, why have you not called for the resignation of Obama after his admin tried to force a judge with Iranian heritage from hearing Iranian-American immigration cases?

Flip this around. Would you be okay with a presidential candidate saying that a white judge was unable to do his job b/c of his color? What if a ban of additional white immigrants was being proposed? Would you be okay with a female candidate stating that women are clearly superior to the inferior male?

I hope you would stand up and speak out against such actions, because I know I would.

The man isn't defending trumps views. He's making a point that Trump is being misquoted to support an argument. It doesn't matter how right or wrong you make trump out to be because it's not about that.

Ok, I'll play your game. First, the judge situation is not the worst thing about Trump, it's actually a very very minor thing in the scheme of things, but I agree with you on the Iranian judge blocking, that is a very wrong and racist decision by whoever decided on it in the Obama admin, but it doesn't mean that, just because Obama did it, it's ok for Trump to do it. Furthermore, the only reason Trump is calling bias here is because he knows that he antagonized people of Mexican origin, which is in itself a massive show of incompetence and short-sightedness.

Re: Muslim ban/profiling. You said that no one mentioned it. Apparently, you and I read different articles by sama then.

I'm sorry, but being a Trump supporter means you accept his positions on race, immigrants, and the economy. Otherwise, why on earth are you supporting him? because he told you he'll "make America great again"? no one can argue with that, but like sama mentioned, this is but a trap to lure you in, but the honey ain't there, it's just hate, misery, and xenophobia all the way inside.

I'm not arguing that you should vote for Trump. I'm just pointing out the lies and distortion. People should make their decision based on facts.

> Trump is calling bias here is because he knows that he antagonized people of Mexican origin

Doesn't matter. Even if Trump deliberately antagonized people of Mexican origin, he still deserves fair treatment in court.

> Re: Muslim ban/profiling

Muslim profiling is the de facto security policy in the United States and has been since way before Trump announced his candidacy. If Muslim profiling is equivalent to Nazi treatment of the Jews, I look forward to your spirited campaign calling for the resignation and charging of Obama. I agree on the Muslim ban: not a good idea, would have no effect on terrorism, and is contrary to the ideals of the country.

> You said that no one mentioned it. Apparently, you and I read different articles by sama then.

It's my fault, I meant no one mentioned it in the thread, and I didn't realize that you were referencing the articles reference. But again, I do think it's irrelevant to the point about the judge. Every argument should stand on logic and truth, otherwise we're just like the conspiracy theorists who put together 1 true argument, and 9 false ones, then point to the true one whenever someone points out the issues with the false ones.

> I'm sorry, but being a Trump supporter means you accept his positions on race, immigrants, and the economy.

I do agree with his position on removing illegal immigrants. They're a modern slave labor class in America that is being capitalized by the rich. They're mistreated, underpaid, and when I look at it the only two solutions I can think of to the problem are open borders or enforcement of the borders. Unfortunately Trump is the only candidate calling for the latter.

> Doesn't matter. Even if Trump deliberately antagonized people of Mexican origin, he still deserves fair treatment in court.

Why do you think he isn't getting it? Because he complains? You haven't followed very many court cases if that's how you judge judicial bias.

Or do you have actual concrete evidence from the court case itself to demonstrate bias?

> I do agree with his position on removing illegal immigrants. They're a modern slave labor class in America that is being capitalized by the rich.

True. Either remove them (and block more) or give those already here a way to "go legit" (and still block the border).

If Trump truly believed the judge was biased, why hasn't he instructed his lawyers to request him to be removed? From my understanding he has made no such formal request. The reason is because he is losing the case and those documents that came out a few weeks ago further solidify that.

Fox news Megyn Kelly actually makes a really good case on why attacking the judge is pretty outrageous, particularly for a presumptive presidential candidate. http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/06/07/megyn-kelly-forcing-tr...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com