Why does Donald Trump hate veterans?

[Chain Chungus]

well Obama has been four 8 years so............

If you have a point to make, then make it. If you think I'm going to hop on the paranoid "OBAMA'S OUT TO GET US!" train you are deeply mistaken.

[Guchie]

You seemed to miss the part where I said the ruling is pretty much already a forgone conclusion at this point, and it's not like he'll be thrown in prison for this. A man like Trump wouldn't let this kind of stuff be directly tied to him in such a way as to actually effect his life in a really meaningful way.

If it's a forgone conclusion and any judge who is reasonable why aren't you in favor the judge stepping down to remove the possibility of any taint from this and make Trump look like a jackass?

[Chain Chungus]

Hahaha watching you squirm is much better than I thought it would be. You leftists really love your denial dont you?

You really love those straw mans.

I guess that is what you do when you can't win?

[xChurch]

Did he make this comment before or after it was a forgone conclusion? (Honest question.)

After, the evidence is pretty clear cut. It was essentially a giant Ponzi scheme and they have some of the people who ran it admitting as such. Really hard to get around the administrators of your programs admitting they were a scam.

If it's a forgone conclusion and any judge who is reasonable why aren't you in favor the judge stepping down to remove the possibility of any taint from this and make Trump look like a jackass?

Do you really want this to be a precedent going forward in the US justice system? Stuff like this in law never happens just once, if it's allowed once, it will happen again.

[cuafpr]

If you have a point to make, then make it. If you think I'm going to hop on the paranoid "OBAMA'S OUT TO GET US!" train you are deeply mistaken.

other than obama a few rare things like stolen valor act Obama doesn't give a shit about vets imo... Trump isn't perfect but he is a miles ahead of hillary for a choice for me. I'll be voting him in the fall even if its just to keep her out of office. (note: i fully expect her to win though).

[Guchie]

If you read what Trump said at the time it does seem like a butthurt answer, trying to appeal to the judge's "nationality" to dismiss him

Sorry I didnt see this sooner. But you're right, Trump comes off as being very much a "heart on his sleeve" kind of guy. For better or worse, but still the mere fact of him questioning a judge and his ability to judge a fair trial shouldn't be responded with shutting up the accuser with remarks of "OMG YOU RACIST" cause then you just look scared.

Clearly, and I dont know if this is true, but if the judge has a track record of being impartial then bring that forward and shut trump up with facts, not calling him a racist for something that isn't racist.

[Pangean]

Well the first mistake is pretending Ryan wants to love Trump. It was pulling teeth to get him to endorse Trump. He doesn't want him at the front of his party, so it's not hard for him to think unfavorably toward him. But disregarding that, I'd still have to see the full "racist" quote (and please do quote it, I'm genuinely honest). To suggest that, given current events, it is likely that he isn't getting a fair trial? You really think that's not possible? You will 100% honestly say that you don't think it's possible for a Hispanic judge to be biased given the current race and media wars on such a huge public figure?

People are foaming at the mouth right now (Republicans included) to paint a bad picture of Trump, of course people would say this is racist. But deep down, logically speaking, you have to admit there may be some merit to his belief. I can't logically figure out how people can't even consider the notion. It's likely because they don't want to and they WANT to dislike Trump, so saying it's racist is a very easy answer.

Your first mistake is thinking loving Trump has anything to do with it. The sitting speaker of the house of the same party as Trump said he is being racist. Unprecedented in the history of the GOP.

You want to see the quotes, google it and see the actual videos with Jake Tapper. I am going to be blunt, the fact that you haven't seen then yet are making excuses for his behavior smells of bullshit.

The judge is a fucking American born in Indiana. In fact he is more of an American than Trump is. He put his life on the line taking on Mexican Cartels for his country and had to go into hiding with Federal Marshall protection for over a year when a contract was put out on him.

Curiel has been on the case since 2013 and has ruled in Trump's favor in the vast majority of issues. Trump said nothing till the judge ruled against him on summary judgment. Then he was biased. Till then when he sides with Trump he wasn't according to Trump. And I am more than happy to publish an analysis from lawyers, speaking on this case if you want to get into this that demonstrates the judge hasn't made a single wrong ruling of law. If don't have a wrong ruling you can't show bias.

No one has to foam at the mouth to paint a bad picture of Trump when he is is sitting their with a spray painter doing it himself.

[Chain Chungus]

Do you really want this to be a precedent going forward in the US justice system? Stuff like this in law never happens just once, if it's allowed once, it will happen again.

And then throw the power of the Executive Branch behind it...

Man, that is a scary thought. *shudder*

[HardlyWaken]

After, the evidence is pretty clear cut. It was essentially a giant Ponzi scheme and they have some of the people who ran it admitting as such. Really hard to get around the administrators of your programs admitting they were a scam.

No, I mean did he say it before the ruling came out. Not the evidence. Whether it was clear-cut or not was irrelevant, back to "not about the guilty call" but the possible severity of the repercussions.

The reason I ask is, if the evidence was substantial, it's reasonable to assume with a possible biased judge, they take the "obvious evidence" and run with it, and make the penalties as harsh as they could be.

If, however, he already knew the turn-out, my curious question is "what was he trying to gain"? It doesn't take away the fact that, in reality, he still could have been right, and the penalties lower with a different judge, at that point that becomes irrelevant, he must have something to gain to bring it up at all. Money should be a non-issue.

[Hooked]

This guy is a full on politician now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Constantine

[xChurch]

No, I mean did he say it before the ruling came out. Not the evidence. Whether it was clear-cut or not was irrelevant, back to "not about the guilty call" but the possible severity of the repercussions.

The reason I ask is, if the evidence was substantial, it's reasonable to assume with a possible biased judge, they take the "obvious evidence" and run with it, and make the penalties as harsh as they could be.

If, however, he already knew the turn-out, my curious question is "what was he trying to gain"? It doesn't take away the fact that, in reality, he still could have been right, and the penalties lower with a different judge, at that point that becomes irrelevant, he must have something to gain to bring it up at all. Money should be a non-issue.

It's simple, he wants an out. He just needed a way so that regardless of the legal repercussions, his supporters will still believe he is innocent because of the judge's heritage. As I said before, he doubtlessly has enough plausible deniability to avoid any serious personal repercussions because that's how he works, and how most high level people like him work.

[Guchie]

Do you really want this to be a precedent going forward in the US justice system? Stuff like this in law never happens just once, if it's allowed once, it will happen again.

This is a good question and I dont know. I think in high profile cases it matters, to send a message out, I dont think the DoJ should step in and force the judge to recuse himself, but I think the judge should to remove all doubt.

Best way to safe face without setting precedent at least.

The point is supposed to be a fair trial, or the illusion of one, not sticking it to Trump.

[Chain Chungus]

If, however, he already knew the turn-out, my curious question is "what was he trying to gain"? It doesn't take away the fact that, in reality, he still could have been right, and the penalties lower with a different judge, at that point that becomes irrelevant, he must have something to gain to bring it up at all. Money should be a non-issue.

What he has to gain is avoiding prison time for fraud. Convince your supporters it is politically motivated because you are running for president and they will argue in your defense without knowing all of the details.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was the entire reason he is running for president. The whole "open up the libel laws" comment out of left field was a big clue to this.

[Guchie]

Crap, he called me out again, I know, double down on straw man and claim he cant win, even if he already called me out pages ago.... SMRT!

I thought you said you were done with me bro? I already accepted your white flag awhile back but you know, keep on avoiding the question.

Here I will put it in a question that might be easier for your to swallow?

Does the black lives matter movement have a point when questioning the biases within the system?
IF yes, why does Donald Trump not?

[Deletedaccount1]

While the guy in the OP is pretty much right, I don't think the majority of veterans will agree with him.

[xChurch]

This is a good question and I dont know. I think in high profile cases it matters, to send a message out, I dont think the DoJ should step in and force the judge to recuse himself, but I think the judge should to remove all doubt.

Best way to safe face without setting precedent at least.

The point is supposed to be a fair trial, or the illusion of one, not sticking it to Trump.

I don't think it would matter though. If he was successful, others would try because desperation makes people turn to extreme measures and all it takes of one example of said measure working, especially these days where the court of public opinion can rival the real courts in some cases.

I thought you said you were done with me bro? I already accepted your white flag awhile back but you know, keep on avoiding the question.

Here I will put it in a question that might be easier for your to swallow?

Does the black lives matter movement have a point when questioning the biases within the system?
IF yes, why does Donald Trump not?

Because one is systemic, one is speculative.

[HardlyWaken]

Curiel has been on the case since 2013 and has ruled in Trump's favor in the vast majority of issues. Trump said nothing till the judge ruled against him on summary judgment. Then he was biased. Till then when he sides with Trump he wasn't according to Trump. And I am more than happy to publish an analysis from lawyers, speaking on this case if you want to get into this that demonstrates the judge hasn't made a single wrong ruling of law. If don't have a wrong ruling you can't show bias.

No one has to foam at the mouth to paint a bad picture of Trump when he is is sitting their with a spray painter doing it himself.

This part is relevant, and good to know.

As for the first part, it's not unprecedented. The GOP didn't want him in the first place, he essentially sabotaged their plans. They've been trying to keep him out since he began. So saying Ryan disagreed with him really doesn't mean a whole lot.

The highlighted bit is a good bit of information, but here's the thing. In 2013 he wasn't running for president and didn't have a 70-something unfavorable view from Hispanics. He was in his corner until he was media-bashed and was turned into the mega-racist he's known for now, and is now not in his favor. Now, I'm not saying he should be in his favor, but it shouldn't be hard to see how this could feel like it was relevant to and had connections to the unfavorable painting from the media that only started recently, technically.

Not that I support this, because it's very dangerous, but I'd imagine the twisting of his words and image to turn him into a monster to push political agendas has probably made him literally paranoid. That's the feeling I get, is that he's paranoid. But at the same time, I find it hard to fault him for being paranoid.

[Chain Chungus]

I thought you said you were done with me bro? I already accepted your white flag awhile back but you know, keep on avoiding the question.

Here I will put it in a question that might be easier for your to swallow?

Does the black lives matter movement have a point when questioning the biases within the system?
IF yes, why does Donald Trump not?

Another straw man.

Keep trying, maybe the 10th time it will stick.

[Guchie]

While the guy in the OP is pretty much right, I don't think the majority of veterans will agree with him.

Clearly non veterans know what is best for veterans.

[Deletedaccount1]

Clearly non veterans know what is best for veterans.

What do you mean? I'm just saying that I think quite a few veterans support Trump, a non-interventionist Republican who has dedicated a large portion of his campaign to VA reform.