“As many have pointed out he could have talked about this judge’s leftist ties, particularly to La Raza. And despite what some people seem to think he is articulate enough to make that argument. It isn’t a matter of Trump not being a seasoned politician, either. You, me, anybody could have. So could Trump. So why didn’t he?

Because he thinks this will work better with those knuckle-dragging moronic racist conservatives. Or as Obama would have but it, those “bitter clingers” with their Bibles and their guns and most importantly in this case their xenophobia.”

Today we receive confirmation this assessment was, in fact, correct.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-regarding-trump-university

“…I do not feel that one’s heritage makes them incapable of being impartial, but, based on the rulings that I have received in the Trump University civil case, I feel justified in questioning whether I am receiving a fair trial.

Due to what I believe are unfair and mistaken rulings in this case and the Judge’s reported associations with certain professional organizations, questions were raised regarding the Obama appointed Judge’s impartiality.”

Why, it’s almost as if right up until he wrote this press release Trump had never accused Curiel of being a Mexican, and it’s an inherent conflict of interest because “I’m building a wall between the US and Mexico.”

Confirmed: Trump always could have taken issue with Curiel without ever mentioning his Mexican heritage once, as in this press release. But he didn’t; Trump chose to emphasized Curiel’s Mexican heritage. Because, again, Trump thinks his supporters are stupid and racist.

It’s more of a vain hope, I think, that Trump won’t be a disaster because of “X”.

X can be any number of things:

– the media will watch him. True, as far as it goes. For me, I want a boring president who’s not IN MY GRILL 24/7 the way Trump will be. Too much to ask?

– he’ll get impeached (seriously, I’ve seen people say that will keep him in check)

– he’ll hire the best people, top people. Terrific people (no evidence of this so far)

– he’ll become more presidential once he’s nominated (people were really hanging on to this one a month or two ago – anyone still think this?)

– he’ll suddenly morph into Ronald Reagan because . . . polls from 1980. This is plausible. Also, maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt…

Actually, I’d take it a step or two further.

Folks have ignored politics for so long, that they’ve left it to others to do the work. For many, their “duty” begins and ends at the ballot box (if that). No surprise then that we see a system reflecting and operating to the benefit of those most active.

Eric calls it activism, but that seems to connote something more negative / leftish / Alynskyite than I think he intends. I simply call it involvement.

The process starts in recruiting and vetting candidates. Then, supporting them through candidacy and election. Finally, in holding elected officials accountable.

There is much more to it than that (e.g. making the case in our communities, convincing others to buy in, organization, etc. – I’m sure Eric can articulate a huge list here), but the above is the foundation, IMHO.

Liberty is a Responsibility, not a Right.

Astute point.

I believe it is an attempt at misdirection – shiny object politics – something Trump excels at.

More likely, though, Trump winning just means the authoritarian statist shoe is on the other foot. Does anyone (anyone?) seriously think Trump won’t use the power of the executive branch to go after his “enemies”? Does anyone think Judge Curiel will survive the first 100 days of a Trump presidency with his career intact unless he rules in favor of Trump? Regardless of what’s right and just? What about anyone else who’s ever crossed him? Think he’s going to be spending his time doing what’s best for the country, or rather unleashing his grudges? The man is probably to have a narcissistic disorder – he’s not going to spend time doing things that aren’t about enhancing himself and punishing his enemies.

It’s all well and good when the arsonist is *your* arsonist, until he isn’t.

How about we just elect better leaders. I’m tired of the apocalyptic, hopeless talk. Elect better leaders. The reason it “doesn’t work” is so many people are stuck in the “lesser of two evils”, “oh well, I’ll vote for the person with the “R” (or “D”) after his/her name, what choice do I have?” mentality. We reward these cr@ppy candidates and their cr@ppy parties with our votes, then complain the system doesn’t work.

Vote for better leaders. Refuse to vote for bad ones.

As Big Maq and Bill said (and as I believe I said in my post “Note”), if that’s the case the Trump was trying to make, he has to actually make it. He did not.

Say what the judge has done that is biased. Ruling against the Great Trump is not enough. Say exactly what organization the judge is part of and mention some of the biased positions it holds. Describe how the two tie in. It wouldn’t take long to do it; doesn’t have to be a book. But unless it’s done, and if you say it’s due to the judge’s “Mexican heritage,” or just some Latino organization that “supports Mexico,” you haven’t done the job and you open yourself to charges of racism that seem very very plausible.

It’s what the left does—condemns people for being white, or male, or whatever, and implies bias. It’s wrong whichever side does it and only preaching to the choir.

With Trump, it just depends how big his choir is. I don’t think it’s so big that he will win in the general, as I’ve repeatedly said. And in fact I think these statements about Judge Curiel have hurt him more than most of the things he’s said in the past. You know why? Because the subject he’s talking about is not a principle such as immigration or PC speech or the like, it’s about a case—that of Trump University being accused of fraud—in which he already is looking bad. To imagine a judge ruling against him without being biased against him is not the least bit difficult.