Thursday, June 09, 2016

House Speaker Paul Ryan stated today that Donald Trump’s recent comments regarding Judge Gonzalo Curiel are both “racist” and “indefensible,”

Just days after Speaker Paul Ryan formally endorsed former rival Donald Trump, the House Speaker was taken aback by Trump’s recent “racist” statements regarding a federal judge’s Hispanic heritage. Ryan was quick to repudiate Trump’s statements, lashing out at the Republican nominee, reports the Washington Post.

“Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment. It’s totally unacceptable,” said Speaker Paul Ryan.

Last week, Donald Trump infamously stated that federal judge Gonzalo Curiel could not be impartial in the Trump University lawsuit because he is “a Mexican,” despite being born in Indiana. Trump’s assertion wasn’t, as some of his previous statements have been, a slip of the tongue from which the candidate quickly backed off. This one Trump hammered home again and again. Speaking with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Trump reiterated the attack over and over again, stating that he does not believe that a judge can fairly oversee a case against him if that judge is of Mexican descent.


Judge Curiel was an Obama appointee and has ties to the Mexican revanchist organization "La Raza", which means "The Race", the alleged Mexican race. The judge has also already made rulings against Trump.  Judge Curiel is the one in the wrong.  Because of the perceived conflicts of interest, he should recuse himself from the case.   Trump's comments may achieve that.


Bird of Paradise said...

Paul Ryna BLAAH,BLAAH,BLAAH a babbling pinhead with a walnut sized brain

Anonymous said...

Trump may be in the right, but he should not have made the comment.

Anonymous said...

Bird of Paradise is describing himself.

Lorg Skyegon said...

Trump is not in the right. The reason he's only blustering in the media is that if he actually directs his lawyers to file such a motion, he and they are going to get sanctioned. Curiel is not a member of La Raza. He's a member of a local Hispanic lawyer group which is not connected to the La Raza group. It's no different than, say, the Congressional Black Caucus.

Anonymous said...

Just a quick fact. Mexican is NOT a race, it's a nationality. People on the left love to throw the racist accusation around even when it has no basis in fact.

Anonymous said...

Lorg Skygegon, while what you are saying about some of the affiliations is true you ignore the rhetoric of the judge in support of la raza and for those statements alone a respectable judge would recuse themselves. The judge has shown time and again that he believes that Mexican "race" has been oppressed and that alone makes any ruling he makes suspect in judicial review.


Anonymous said...

Conservatives hate anyone with skin darker than their own.

Anonymous said...


If the case were about immigration or other ethnicentric issues, you may have a point that Curiel may have a bias.

Trump's point seems to be that anyone that stands up or doesn't think like he does is biased in some way. It is a pattern with him.

However, this case is worse. Instead of just saying he thinks he is getting a raw deal, Trump said that as president he would investigate Curiel based solely on his rulings in this case. Does Trump think that no other while males have come before the judge?

It is difficult, no, it is impossible to imagine Trump as a judge ever recusing himself from any case. Despite being big in real estate, would he say he could judge a real estate case fairly given his statements supporting developers in the past? If two women were suing each other and one was attractive and the other was not, do you think Trump would recuse himself based on statements he made in the past?

It is fine for Trump to say he is not being treated fairly when it comes to his case. Seldom do any participants in a case that lose motions think they were treated fairly. His mistake and where he is wrong is the threat of retaliation if he wins the election. That is what many people object to.

It is also interesting that in his comments, Trump got so many things about Curiel wrong. Once again, there is a pattern with Trump of not getting facts straight in his mind before opening his mouth.

Trump is over the line on this one.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:04,

Trump is not a conservative, so your point is out in left field.

But it is interesting that it is liberals who always define and judge people by their gender and color of skin. Can't you just accept people for who they are?

Bird of Paradise said...

Anon 1:27 Go kiss a cobra pinhead

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:00 - you win.
Well done sir/madam.

Anonymous said...

Imagine Charlie Rangle or Al Sharpton having a case tried before a judge who is a member of the KKK. Nah, I can't imagine it either. However, to the Left, the Media and the Rino eggshell walkers out there the opposite so acceptable one cannot even not question it.

jonjayray said...

It's official Mexican government propaganda that Mexicans ARE a race. Totally wrong but what else is new?

Spurwing Plover the fighting shorebird said...

Ryans a blabering nincompoop and a poltroon typical politician

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:00 Trump simply said he would have the judge investigated,. He did not imply that he would do the investigation and he is entitled to suggest that the judge is applying a racial bias although after the case would have been more prudent. It is stupid to suggest Trump would recuse himself from anything he is not judging but merely commenting on. Trump is not a judge and does not pretend to be a judge. I suggest that YOU get Your facts right before spouting off and looking like an idiot which you do. I hope you do not see law as a future profession. Trump is not the only one opening his mouth in this election before engaging the brain. I suggest sir that you should also do so. Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:32,

He did not imply that he would do the investigation ,,,,,

Actually, he did say that. He said as President he would investigate the judiciary.

It is stupid to suggest Trump would recuse himself from anything.....

Apparently you missed the point. Trump would never recuse him if in the same situation because Trump sees himself as the perfect person. He applies different standards to his conduct and the conduct of others all the time.

Trump is not the only one opening his mouth in this election before engaging the brain.

Ah yes.... the ol' second grade excuse of "they do it too!"

There are very few policies and statements on which Trump has remained consistent. That's troubling to many people.

I suggest sir that you should also do so....

Attack the messenger for an opinion and facts you don't like. I get it. You love Trump and seek to emulate him. Perhaps you like the idea that an insult is a correct way to handle facts that are against your position. That's the Trump way.

Trump, Hillary and Obama all have several things in common: they are all left leaning, they all lie without consequence and they are supported by masses who vote for personality rather than on intellect and examining positions.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:43 misdirect my statements deliberately. It is one thing for Trump to say that he would investigate the judiciary and actually launch an investigation which given Obama's selections for the judiciary would be a wise move and ACTUALLY head the investigation. If you think Clinton would be a better president then I suggest you wait for her to get out of prison first which by the way would make her ineligible to become president. As you accuse me you also attack the messenger and may I say that I hope Trump wins and sends you to seek the mental help you truly deserve.

Anonymous said...

Anon @:59,

Once again you display the Trump tactic of attacking those with whom you disagree simply because they disagree with you.

It is entirely inappropriate for Trump to suggest to investigate the judiciary. It is even more inappropriate for Trump to make a claim of bias without any proof other than "I lost a series of motions," none of which had a chance to succeed on the merits. If, as President, Trump wanted to investigate the judiciary because 1) he lost a case a case or motions, 2) as a vendetta, or 3) to investigate just to investigate, all would not only be morally wrong but unConstitutional.

But that's the funny thing about Trump and his minions - they either don't like the Constitution or have never read it. Perhaps the language and meanings are too complicated for them.

You illustrate your ignorance when you say that a prison stay would make Hillary ineligible for the office of President. That's not the case according to Article II Section 1 of the Constitution, but why should facts matter to people who follow Trump? May I suggest that you actually read the qualifications for the office before showing your lack of knowledge to the world?

(It's also somewhat sad and interesting that you would hope that Trump would somehow order anyone to "seek mental health." How pathetic of you to think such a power would rest in the President (because it doesn't) and furthermore, how pathetic of you to suggest that disagreeing with you or Trump is some sort of mental disease. May I suggest that you look up narcissism and paranoia before spouting off again?

I never said that Hillary would be a better president, but if your point is that Clinton is more odious than Trump, I would agree. That doesn't mean that Trump is not a vile, odious creature too because he is.

I suspect if you respond, your next post will be filled with the same sort of attack rantings that aren't based in logic or law, but that is what Trump followers seem to do best. It is the same tactic used by Hillary and her supporters because both groups are left leaning and hate ideas, speech and actions that are contrary to their tribe-think.

I mean, why shouldn't Trump and Hillary hold the same values? They are friends and usually friends hang out with people of like beliefs. (Birds of a feather and all that.)

The fact of the matter seems to be that people like you can't stand the thought that you are going to vote for a person who shouldn't be elected dog catcher in a small town. That truth will go right over your head, but that's okay. People have the right to live in ignorance.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:53 So you are a socialist. You can't generate wealth by your own means. You need to feed off others to support your needs. now who is the parasite? trump or you and you ilk.? I suppose you support the parasites crossing the border daily because they are to lazy to make their country work? Go back over the border before your are deported you POS.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:52,

Thanks for proving my belief that Trump and his supporters cannot refute logic and facts and so the only recourse is to attack people based on the supporters imagined world where no one could possibly ever disagree with them.

So you are a socialist

Where did that brain fart come from? Oh. From a Trump supporter. Nevermind.

For the record sir, I own my own company.

Unlike Trump, I was never gifted a large sum of money to start that company. Instead, worked for the funds.
Unlike Trump, I have increased my financial wealth and earnings more than if I had just stuck money in the bank.
Unlike Trump, I have never been sued by a contractor or supplier for payment of goods and or services. That means that unlike Trump, I have never lost a case where I was sued for failure to pay for goods and services.
Unlike Trump, I have always used people who are in the country legally and have not broken immigration laws.
Unlike Trump, I have never underpaid my employees.
Unlike Trump, I have never sought a special tax break for any project I was involved with. (Seeking a tax break would make Trump the parasite, wouldn't it?)
Unlike Trump, I have never donated to a candidate to garner favors.
Unlike Trump, I have never declared bankruptcy and stuck citizens with the bill. (There's that parasite thing again.)
Unlike Trump, I have never sued anyone for saying something that I didn't like.
Unlike Trump, I have never called up a company and demanded someone be fired for telling the truth.
Unlike Trump, I have never tried to have a First Amendment case to be heard in a Family Court because no other court would hear it.
Unlike Trump, I have never tried to use eminent domain to increase my wealth or value of my company.
Unlike Trump, I have never tried to pass off the farcical idea that the value of my holdings is dependent on "how I feel that day" instead of a hard number.
Unlike Trump, I paid for health care for my employees.
Unlike Trump, I am for the First Amendment - including the right to speak as well as being against forced speech.
Unlike Trump, I am for the Second Amendment (a stance which trump changes without saying why.)
Unlike Trump, I am for the Fourth Amendment.
Unlike Trump, I am against asset forfeiture without due process.
Unlike Trump, I view, judge and discern people based on their character and their actions - not their race, color, beliefs or gender.
Unlike Trump and his family, I have never been sued for discriminatory practices in the workplace. That means that unlike Trump, I have never lost any cases based on discriminatory practices in the workplace.

In the private realm,.....

Unlike Trump, I have been married to the same woman since our vows decades ago.
Unlike Trump, I have never had an affair.
Unlike Trump, my wife has never accused me of assaulting her.
Unlike Trump, I never felt it was beneath me to help my wife with the raising of children, especially when they are very young and in diapers.
Unlike Trump, I know where my ancestors came from. (Trump says in the "Art of the Deal" his father and mother came from Scandinavia. They weren't - they were German.)
Unlike Trump, my ancestors were here during the Revolutionary War and fought for the rebels. (So much for your theory of "being deported," eh?)
Unlike Trump, my family volunteers in the community.
Unlike Trump, I have been elected to a public office.
Unlike Trump, while campaigning, I never lied about the financing behind the campaign.

Finally, in this evisceration of everything you have thought I might be, unlike Trump, I have never said I felt Hillary Clinton would make a great president.

It is clear that you cannot make a cognitive argument based on facts and are hoping that by slinging mud you will accomplish something. Instead, all you have accomplished is exposed your ignorance, a lack of ability to think critically and a willingness to lie to support your fantasies to the world.

Anonymous said...

I don't want to see leftism further drag down America, so I hope Trump gets in. And I also hope Trump has good strong men around him who advise him well and check any errors of judgement that he may have. I don't want to see leftist irrational emotionalism followed by opposite irrational emotionalism. The way forward, I think, is between the extremes and up at a right angle. But it is the extremes that provide us with references, so we need them, like a car steering wheel needs to be alternately adjusted left and right to steer the car forward.

Anonymous said...

6:16 Am - just a tiny point for the sake of accuracy - Trump's mother wasn't German or of German descent, she was born in Scotland - a MacLeod from the Hebrides (a clan with a Scandinavian/Norse origin). Trump's father was of German parentage, whether or not they had some Scandinavian connection.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:52,

I don't want to see leftism drag the country down either. But Trump is left leaning. There is no place left for a true conservative to go.

Anon 12:27,

Thanks. I was rushed and misstated the heritage slightly but you are correct. My apologies for the error.