Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says Donald Trump is right to challenge the fairness a judge overseeing...

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says Donald Trump is right to challenge the fairness a judge overseeing lawsuits against him.


thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282222-former-bush-ag-trump-right-to-challenge-judges-fairness

Of course he's right to question the judge. If it were the other way round it would be questioned.

Can people ask for a new judge or is this just Trump trying to complain until he gets his way?

it really makes you think

I love how this is the best the can come up with. Bring it on.

Little bit of column A, little bit of column B.

Both and both.

>Gonzales
>Defends Trump
NAAAANIIIIII???!!!

All according to plan

HAIL THE GOD EMPEROR

You can get a new judge if your lawyers prove conflict of interest. It should be obvious there's a conflict of interest here but liberals are faggots and like to pretend bullshit like social justice excuse real problems like conflict of interest or juries.

>strawman logic doesn't apply to 100% of a demographic

No way

>yfw Trump flat out calls Gonzalo Curiel a Mexican ethno-nationalists and irredentist.

He is afilitated with La Raza, even though leftists are trying to write articles saying La Raza Lawyers of California have nothing to do the The National Council of La Raza. This shit is going mainstream, people. It's finally here!

I wonder if anybody remembers the name Alberto Gonzales.

It dropped out of my mind for a number of years.

>Mr. Trump why do you think this judge is biased against you?
>He's Mexican and I have a hard position on illegal mexican immigration
>MEXICAN? HE WAS BORN IN INDIANA! HE'S AMERICAN YOU RACIST, HOW CAN YOU CALL HIM MEXICAN HOLY SHIT WHAT A RACIST

can somebody please explain how 90% of news stories about this are pushing this semantic logic?

I've literally never heard an american citizen of mexican heritage not be referred to as simply "mexican" before, let alone take it as some kind of indication that they were a mexican citizen. it's like they invented this shit overnight.

"Mexican" is a nationality, not a race.

True, but they wouldn't name their own organization La Raza (The Race) Lawyers of California if they did not feel their ethnic identity had racial connotations. We all know, semantics aside, what the real situation is.

no shit, I'm talking about common usage of the term.

people in this country that trace their family back to mexico refer to themselves as mexican regardless of holding citizenship in the country or not. It's never been considered an insulting or loaded term until three fucking days ago unless it was literally misapplied

All hate speech is race speech.

(((not even the jews can prove it's about race)))

They're arguing semantics and you need to either ignore it and redirect to the main point or just ignore them outright. It's akin to someone saying that calling a jewish person a "jew" is offensive.

I'd bet you a dollar against a donut that former AG Gonzalez wouldn't bat an eye toward being called a "mexican american" or anything similar.

>We all know (...) what the real situation is.
No, I don't. Tell me.

The media is retarded

People are writing stories about trump saying the illegal thugs in San Jose are illegals and thugs as if that isn't a fact

t. Alberto Gonzales

The proximity of Canada, the US, and Mexico mean that people from these countries often maintain connections to their cultural and national heritage, regardless of which country they are living in at any given time. This persists over generations, as family connection persist immediately over either border.

There's nothing innately wrong with this situation of course, except that swipple liberals like to pretend that national and ethnic loyalties to not persist internationally. That may be true when great distances separate people from their native groups, and it was especially true in the past when communication and travel was more onerous. But we shouldn't pretend now that the North American nationalities are so easily shed and adopted. It's not an accurate description of real social dynamics.

!internationally
intergenerationally*

Well the media are doing a sneaky thing they are forcing the idea that a guy who is born in america cant have an agenda and can't be biased in any way which is racist in itself cuz in their eyes only Trump can have a prejudice which is false, the attorney may actually have a prejudice

it's not the semantic logic I was originally confused by it's just the novelty of it, I've lived in a border state most of my life and I have never seen the term dissected in this way to imply a "non-american" status.

again it's like it was invented three days ago by every journalist and talking head in the country at the exact same moment, it's bizarre

I hate to be that "not all [x]" poster, but there's obvious exceptions to the rule (like AG Gonzalez).

I agree with your post though.

They don't call it "racebait" for nothing. The same people who conflate being called "mexican" with being called "non-american" are the same people who see the headline of a news article and make up their mind about it without reading the article.

In a lot of ways, the internet has made people dumber and angrier than ever before.

Can't wait for this to set a precedents and let Black people claim racism when its a white judge. All those college educated, affirmative action PoC "Nu-judges" will be more sympathetic to the plight of the black man.

So? I refer to Mexicans in America as Mexicans all the time. If that offends you, I don't care. I'm still going to do it, and everyone knows exactly what is meant by it.

There are MILLIONS of exceptions. The problem is too many people reflexively defend the universal assimilation myth, and deny that there are ANY group dynamics that are intrinsically against American interests, and in favor of foreign interests. Or they play the "moderate muslim" game, and say that to be concerned about those dynamics at all, will only push more people to become traitorous--which ironically proves the point about concerns over lingering ethnic allegiances.

And of course no one has a hard time believing that whites have entrenched ethnic interests. But Jews, Blacks, and Hispanics? "Noooo, of course not. That's racist to suggest otherwise."

Why would I get offended at something logical?

>everyone knows exactly what is meant by it
Why don't you elucidate on that?