http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/27/news/trump-university/index.html
Donald Trump under oath: Trump University's promises crumble
by Drew Griffin, Nelli Black and Curt Devine @CNNMoney
May 27, 2016: 2:03 PM ET
As if any of it matters. #teflondon
[Edited on 5/28/2016 by gondicar]
His idea and now he backs down. I knew he is nothing bit big a pu$$y with a big mouth. Of course it doesn't really matter for #teflondon. Worth noting that apparently no one dares to debate Bernie.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/27/politics/trump-says-he-will-not-debate-sanders/index.html
Trump will be the next President. It seems pretty clear. The left won't turn out for Hillary and they will turn out in droves for Trump. I predict 4 years only though.
my conspiracy is that he is, unknown to everyone....helping bernie win california....thereby creating chaos at dem convention. makes bernie look strong him backing down. BRILLIANT
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/27/news/trump-university/index.html
Donald Trump under oath: Trump University's promises crumble
by Drew Griffin, Nelli Black and Curt Devine @CNNMoney
May 27, 2016: 2:03 PM ETAs if any of it matters. #teflondon
I've given up on understanding it. He is the biggest lier in the history of politics, but his supporters don't seem to care. If he is elected, it will be really interesting to see how long he can keep the con going. I wouldn't think it would be very long, but then Kim Jong-un has kept power in North Korea for a long time, so stupidity doesn't appear to hamper staying in power.
They seem to care that Hillary is a liar, but not Donald....... smh.....
my conspiracy is that he is, unknown to everyone....helping bernie win california....thereby creating chaos at dem convention. makes bernie look strong him backing down. BRILLIANT
There is something else to consider also. We all assume we will have an election, but I got to tell ya, there are psychics that say we will NOT have another President after Obama, there will be no 2016 election. The deal is this, IF anything serious happens in this country, and Obama feels that he has to declare a state of emergency, then he just uses his Executive Power and he stays in office to deal with the National Emergency. National Emergency like the financial crisis. Some analysts have said that the latest the financial crisis will implode would be January 2017, some feel it will be sooner than that, like September for instance. [election day being November, that takes care of that now doesn't it].
If there is an election and Trump gets in, would he be able to stop the financial crisis from happening?
Many people are not aware of the seriousness other countries are facing, Venezuela to name one, and I have brought up the issue of Great Britain wanting to withdraw from the European Union (which has 27 countries in it) to try to save their own financial self. That votes comes down the end of June.
Of course people will be talking about this. Marco Rubio is going to "help" Trump at the convention.
Will he and Paul Ryan actually end up giving Trump their endorsement? What would Jeb say? What will any of them who were so very opposed to Trump say now that he has enough delegates to become the nominee of the Republican party?
There is something else to consider also. We all assume we will have an election, but I got to tell ya, there are psychics that say we will NOT have another President after Obama, there will be no 2016 election. The deal is this, IF anything serious happens in this country, and Obama feels that he has to declare a state of emergency, then he just uses his Executive Power and he stays in office to deal with the National Emergency.
LOL...this reminds me of when people on this site predicted Dubya would declare martial law to maintain power eight years ago. The only difference is the participation of psychics this time. 
There is something else to consider also. We all assume we will have an election, but I got to tell ya, there are psychics that say we will NOT have another President after Obama, there will be no 2016 election. The deal is this, IF anything serious happens in this country, and Obama feels that he has to declare a state of emergency, then he just uses his Executive Power and he stays in office to deal with the National Emergency.
LOL...this reminds me of when people on this site predicted Dubya would declare martial law to maintain power eight years ago. The only difference is the participation of psychics this time.
Maybe Gina can have the psychics give us the winning lottery numbers for tonight. That would be about as accurate as the prognostications she alluded to. After the November election will the psychics admit they were just blowing smoke?
Of course people will be talking about this. Marco Rubio is going to "help" Trump at the convention.
Will he and Paul Ryan actually end up giving Trump their endorsement? What would Jeb say? What will any of them who were so very opposed to Trump say now that he has enough delegates to become the nominee of the Republican party?
If he has no self respect after all the garbage Trump lobbed his way, Marco should line up and show us what he's made of.
There is something else to consider also. We all assume we will have an election, but I got to tell ya, there are psychics that say we will NOT have another President after Obama, there will be no 2016 election. The deal is this, IF anything serious happens in this country, and Obama feels that he has to declare a state of emergency, then he just uses his Executive Power and he stays in office to deal with the National Emergency.
LOL...this reminds me of when people on this site predicted Dubya would declare martial law to maintain power eight years ago. The only difference is the participation of psychics this time.
When you say people on this site, I think that was Gina too. Might have been a psychic involved back then too. Psychics and Donald Trump have a lot in common. Both give general predictions without any specifics. Both have no evidence to back up their positions. Neither offer any facts. Both make money by offering up nothing but lies.
There is something else to consider also. We all assume we will have an election, but I got to tell ya, there are psychics that say we will NOT have another President after Obama, there will be no 2016 election. The deal is this, IF anything serious happens in this country, and Obama feels that he has to declare a state of emergency, then he just uses his Executive Power and he stays in office to deal with the National Emergency.
LOL...this reminds me of when people on this site predicted Dubya would declare martial law to maintain power eight years ago. The only difference is the participation of psychics this time.
When you say people on this site, I think that was Gina too. Might have been a psychic involved back then too. Psychics and Donald Trump have a lot in common. Both give general predictions without any specifics. Both have no evidence to back up their positions. Neither offer any facts. Both make money by offering up nothing but lies.
No, it wasn't Gina, but I won't name names to protect the guilty.
I still think the whole Trump thing is based on the electorate being so sick of politics as usual and has little to do with Trump himself, his integrity, or his grasp on foreign policy issues. It has to do with the fact that he is truly not part of the political establishment as we have come to know it and voter disgust with politics as usual. Sanders is just another expression of this for liberal leaning voters. Together they represent a huge chunk of the voting populace. This disgust has been growing over the last 20 years, and rightfully so in my opinion. The failure of either party to recognize and respond to the disenfranchisement of the American voter is epic, and shows how out of touch they truly are. This race is already the most unusual in my lifetime, and it is really just heating up. This could be just the tip of the iceberg for the next couple of election cycles. The harder the established political stricture pushes against Trump and Sanders, the greater their appeal, regardless of their stance on issues.
i am shocked, shocked I say that any politician would exxagerate or lie.
If Hillary remains the candidate ,Trump wins Big or a landslide. If Uncle Joe gets brought in then he will win.
of course I could be totally wrong about this.
The harder the established political stricture pushes against Trump and Sanders, the greater their appeal, regardless of their stance on issues.
Boom.
But wait, I thought he was worth $10 billion and would be self-funding his campaign? Lying, extortion, and intimidation are all part of "The Art of the Deal" I guess...
Trump camp concedes it's low on money
By Joel Gehrke (@Joelmentum) • 5/27/16 5:23 PM
Donald Trump's campaign has alerted Senate Republicans that he won't have much money to spend fending off attacks from Hillary Clinton over the next couple months.
The notice came when Paul Manafort, Trump's senior advisor, met with a group of Senate Republican chiefs of staff for lunch last week, sources familiar with the meeting told the Washington Examiner. The admission suggests that Trump will be far more dependent on the GOP brass for money than he has led voters to believe, but it's consistent with his reliance on the Republican National Committee to provide a ground game in battleground states.
"They know that they're not going to have enough money to be on TV in June and probably most of July, until they actually accept the nomination and get RNC funds, so they plan to just use earned media to compete on the airwaves," one GOP source familiar with Manafort's comments told the Examiner.
That's a far cry from Trump's public insistence that he signed a fundraising agreement with the RNC in order to help the party, not himself. "The RNC really wanted to do it, and I want to show good spirit," he said last week. "'Cause I was very happy to continue to go along the way I was."
Still, Trump allies have suggested that the RNC is going to take advantage of the real estate mogul. "I don't think the RNC is 100 percent committed," a GOP donor told CNN. "If Donald Trump's seven points down in October, they're going to put that money toward Senate races and House races."
Manafort seemed confident at the lunch with GOP staff, however. "He said that he thought Hillary Clinton was the ideal opponent — that he was the ultimate outsider and she was the ultimate insider," a Senate GOP chief-of-staff in attendance said.
The preemptive fretting about how the RNC plans to spend its money this fall makes some Republicans think that Trump, who has repeatedly insulted Mitt Romney for failing to defeat President Obama in the 2012 presidential election, is preparing to protect his reputation if Hillary Clinton wins.
"He's going to blame it on the RNC if he doesn't win in November," the first source said. "They're laying that groundwork now.
Manafort's statements suggest that Trump won't be using a significant amount of his own money to boost his campaign over the summer. And Trump's plan to rely on media networks to fend off Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party's attacks left Republicans with mixed feelings.
"To be honest, it's worked for him so far," the first source said. "When you get $2 billion of free earned media, it's not a bad strategy. I think if it was a traditional campaign it would be a horrible strategy. You saw what happened to Romney in 2012 getting defined early. But Trump's already so well defined it may not be a bad strategy for him."
One of Trump's House Republican supporters made the same point. "My understanding was that Donald Trump doesn't need as much money as other candidates because he gets so much earned media," the lawmaker said. "It's not that they don't have as much money — which, they haven't had as much money, because they haven't been out raising it, but I think you can fire that machine up [quickly]."
Trump attracted that kind of media coverage by saying things that no other politician would utter and bringing a carnival-esque atmosphere to his campaign rallies, something that Manafort has promised would change as the campaign progresses. The strategic need to keep the camera fixed on himself might hamper that.
"He's going to have to keep saying bombastic stuff that's way far out there that's going to continue to alienate people some in his own party," the source continued. "And he's going to have a hard time unifying his own part. Because that's how he's going to get coverage."
The Trump backer disagreed, arguing that Trump will find it easier to dominate the news cycle in the general election.
"He's zeroing in on Clinton now, already, which gives Republicans who have been reluctant to come on board, I think, more reason and cover to now come on board, because he's pointing out Clinton's weaknesses and faults," the lawmaker said. "And I think those that have been more reluctant to come on board will be more comfortable that we're all focused on the same thing, which is not having Hillary Clinton in the White House."
If that's wrong, however, Senate Republicans running for reelection in blue states could have a difficult summer. "In some places, possibly getting those questions on Trump is going to be annoying," an adviser to a vulnerable GOP incumbent said. "But a lot of times, he's not going to be the shadow in local media that he is with national media.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-camp-concedes-its-low-on-money/article/2592501
But wait, I thought he was worth $10 billion and would be self-funding his campaign? Lying, extortion, and intimidation are all part of "The Art of the Deal" I guess...
__________________________________________________________________________I guess? Meaning that you have not read the book and are just making assumptions based on your political ideology?
Trump also made it very clear that he would be self funding his campaign in the primaries. He never said he would be self-funding his campaign during the general election cycle which has already began since he defeated all challengers and has exceeded the number of delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot.
Of course you would know this if you were informed.
And now back to watching Hillary Clinton having to cancel campaign appearances in New Jersey to run back to California because she can’t put away a socialist 74 year old curmudgeon.
All this never Trump,screw Trump yadda yadda yadda jive.WTF! Obama,Hillary,Bernie,McCain,Romney,and yes Bush.And some of ya'll throw Trump underneath the bottom of the pile.Gimmie a friggin break.If anyone puts Hillary,Bernie,Romney etc above and beyond Trump,,ya need ta use more sun screen,up your meds,etc.
Rag the cat if you will.But don't put Hillary or Bernie on some holier than thou supreme being status compared to Trump
All this never Trump,screw Trump yadda yadda yadda jive.WTF! Obama,Hillary,Bernie,McCain,Romney,and yes Bush.And some of ya'll throw Trump underneath the bottom of the pile.Gimmie a friggin break.If anyone puts Hillary,Bernie,Romney etc above and beyond Trump,,ya need ta use more sun screen,up your meds,etc.
Rag the cat if you will.But don't put Hillary or Bernie on some holier than thou supreme being status compared to Trump
Guess I need to up my meds.
Too funny...
Stephen Hawking Angers Trump Supporters with Baffling Array of Long Words
By Andy Borowitz , May 31, 2016
LONDON (The Borowitz Report)—The theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking angered supporters of Donald J. Trump on Monday by responding to a question about the billionaire with a baffling array of long words.
Speaking to a television interviewer in London, Hawking called Trump “a demagogue who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator,” a statement that many Trump supporters believed was intentionally designed to confuse them.
Moments after Hawking made the remark, Google reported a sharp increase in searches for the terms “demagogue,” “denominator,” and “Stephen Hawking.”
“For a so-called genius, this was an epic fail,” Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, said. “If Professor Hawking wants to do some damage, maybe he should try talking in English next time.”
Later in the day, Hawking attempted to clarify his remark about the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, telling a reporter, “Trump bad man. Real bad man.”
On a more serious note, this Wall St Journal column by Peggy Noonan is a good read...she, among other things, was a speech writer for Ronald Reagan and is now a regular contributor to the WSJ...
A Party Divided, and None Too Soon
Beltway Republicans will have to come to terms with how they lost Middle America.
By Peggy Noonan
June 2, 2016 6:48 p.m. ET
This first month of summer I see movement and no-movement.
No movement: Donald Trump. He’s like someone caught in the first act who lurches into a second act—a solid, prepared speech, a subdued interview—then scrambles back to first-act antics. It’s easy to guess he’s surrounded by friends and supporters who know more is needed than popping off about “Crooked Hillary” but are afraid to mess with his swing. They fear taking the tang out of his secret sauce. Another guess: He’s not sure he can pull off a change of style—he’s afraid he’ll be boring if he’s serious, afraid he’ll bore himself if he knows what he’s going to say next. So he continues to rant, not to reassure fence sitters. Hillary Clinton hasn’t entered a second act either, but it’s partly situational: She’s trapped in a primary battle. When it comes to Mr. Trump she tries various attack lines—“divisive,” “dangerous,” “dangerously incoherent”—to see what resonates, as they say. She is plodding, unimaginative, stolid. She wishes she had secret sauce.
Closer to home I see movement. Friends who’d been for John Kasich or Marco Rubio now sunnily and without a headache declare themselves for Mr. Trump. An intellectual friend, previously disapproving, confided she’s for him too. But two friends who had been early, enthusiastic Trump backers now seem to be having doubts: They’ve lost their oomph, talk about him less. Nothing’s set in concrete this year, not that anything was.
A central predicament of 2016 continues. GOP elites and intellectual cadres may be clueless about America right now, but they have an informed and appropriately elevated sense of the demands of the presidency. They fear Mr. Trump’s temperament and depth do not meet its requirements. Trump supporters have a more grounded sense of America and its problems but too low a sense of what the presidency can demand in regard to personal virtues. If this problem is to be resolved, it is Mr. Trump who will resolve it. He shows little interest. This space said in February that his political fortunes would hinge on whether America came to think of him as a good man and a fully stable one. It is still true.
The Beltway intelligentsia of the conservative movement continues to be upset about Mr. Trump’s coming nomination and claim they’d support him but they have to be able to sleep at night. They slept well enough through two unwon wars, the great recession, and the refusal of Republican and Democratic administrations to stop illegal immigration. In a typically evenhanded piece in National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru writes of conservative infighting. Most back Mr. Trump, but others, “especially among conservative writers, activists, and think-tankers,” vow they’ll never vote for him. “This debate splits people who have heretofore been friends with similar views on almost all issues, and who on each side have reasonable arguments to hand. It is therefore being conducted in a spirit of mutual rage, bitterness, and contempt.”
That’s witty and true—I’ve seen it—but the division is also promising. Too much has long been “agreed on.” At some point conservative intellectuals are going to take their energy and start thinking about how we got here. How did a party that stood for regular people become a party that stood for platitudes regular people no longer found even vaguely pertinent? During the Bush administration, did the party intelligentsia muscle critics and silence needed dissent, making the party narrower, more rigid and embittered? What is the new conservatism for this era? How did the party of Main Street become the party of Donors’ Policy Preferences?
An anecdote. Two years ago at a birthday party for a mutual friend, I bumped into a hedge-fund billionaire who turned to me angrily and lashed out over something I’d written that seemed to him insufficiently conservative. I listened, merely blinking with surprise I’m sorry to say, and removed myself from his flight path. Afterward I thought about how he must have come to view himself. He is, as I said, vastly wealthy, but also generous, giving time and money to think tanks, groups, candidates. He must view all this, I thought, as a targeted investment. Maybe he sees himself as having . . . a controlling investment. Maybe he thinks he bought conservatism. I felt in a sharp new way that my criticisms of the donor class had been right. Inevitably they see to their own enthusiasms and policy priorities. This was how the GOP became the party of We Don’t Care What Americans Think About Illegal Immigration. Who do those Americans think they are—they think they own the place?
A great party needs give. It needs a kind of capaciousness and broadness. On that, the best example of movement I’ve seen in some time is what I discovered this week: a sophisticated, rather brilliant and anonymous website that is using this Trumpian moment to break out of the enforced conservative orthodoxy of the past 15 years.
It is called the Journal of American Greatness. Its contributors ask questions that need asking and makes critiques that sting.
They describe themselves as “aghast at the stupidity and corruption of American politics, particularly in the Republican Party, and above all in what passes for the ‘conservative’ intellectual movement.” Who are they? “None of your damned business.” Why? “Because the times are so corrupt that simply stating certain truths is enough to make one unemployable for life.”
Where they stand: “We support Trumpism, defined as secure borders, economic nationalism, interests-based foreign policy, and above all judging every government action through a single lens: does this help or harm Americans? For now, the principal vehicle of Trumpism is Trump.”
They explore essential questions. “When—and why—did free trade become a sacred ritual of the Republican right?” They give neoconservatism its intellectual due but explore the “unwisdom” of the “Middle East democracy agenda.” Neoconservatives seem “incapable of learning from their mistakes or changing their minds.” The contributors hilariously score NeverTrumpers who claim to be standing at great cost on principle while others are “in the tank” for Mr. Trump: “Of all the opinions that require little courage to express, opposition to Trump is the lead one.” In the past two decades, they observe, “a new conservative intellectual superstructure,” including magazines, journals and think tanks, was built on the new base of the Republican Party. It “routinized the production of its self-justification.” But “the base no longer wants the superstructure.” Voters have their own ideas of what conservatism is.
I contacted JAG by social media and asked about their work. “If we had to characterize ourselves, we would like to think that our writing is informed by a mix of pragmatic experience and theory. What brings us together is our dismay at the stultification of political ideas in the United States. We see ourselves as challenging the intellectual rigidity that has come to characterize, in our view, so much of what passes for self-described ‘serious thinking’ today.”
Their reach and the reactions they’ve received “have thus far significantly exceeded our expectations.”
It’s encouraging they’re doing what they’re doing, and that there is a market for it.
the Journal of American Greatness. Its contributors ask questions that need asking and makes critiques that sting.
Where they stand: “We support Trumpism, defined as secure borders, economic nationalism, interests-based foreign policy, and above all judging every government action through a single lens: does this help or harm Americans? For now, the principal vehicle of Trumpism is Trump.”
BORDERS/STATE SOVEREIGNTY FOR ALL NATIONS.
That is where he differs with all the rest of the politicians.
Computer problems
[Edited on 6/6/2016 by Lissajess]
Computer problems.
[Edited on 6/6/2016 by Lissajess]
My father gave me some great advice when I was about twenty
He said never argue politics with anyone. You will not change their mind, and they will not change yours.
There are do many political threads. Can we please discuss music. I am sorry if I thread crapped or what y'all call it
PEACE 😉
My father gave me some great advice when I was about twenty
He said never argue politics with anyone. You will not change their mind, and they will not change yours.There are do many political threads. Can we please discuss music. I am sorry if I thread crapped or what y'all call it
PEACE 😉
Sometimes thread crapping is a good thing. But to be fair this is the Whipping Post. It was created to as a place to keep these incessant and often asinine conversations separate from the music threads. So if you don't want to discuss politics it's best to stay away from the WP, especially during an election year. But if you see political threads in another area of the website then crap away! 
This disgust has been growing over the last 20 years, and rightfully so in my opinion. The failure of either party to recognize and respond to the disenfranchisement of the American voter is epic, and shows how out of touch they truly are.
Doesn't it go a little deeper than that, though? Voters have a stake in this too. Once politics got turned into the fanbases of two rival sports teams, everything else fell by the wayside.
If everyone is guilty of error, then no one is. Just ask them. 😉
I know none of this stuff matters to his base, but the rest of us just keep shaking our heads in amazement that this stuff continues from a presumptive nominee....
The Disturbing Truth About This Black Family That Supposedly Supports Donald Trump
Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump seems to take any opportunity to tout his popularity with minority voters — even when it's completely fabricated.
On Saturday, Trump quoted a tweet from user @Don_Vito_08, who had written, "Thank you Mr. Trump for standing up for our country!" and called for his followers to #VoteTrump2016 and join him on the #TrumpTrain. Accompanying the tweet was a now-deleted photo of a black family alongside a meme reading, "American families for Trump. We need a common sense president."
It didn't take long for Twitter users to use their own common sense, and sleuthing skills, to figure out that the tweet was a sham. User @MarkCzerniec pointed out that the photo @Don_Vito_08 and Trump had shared was ripped from a WCPO Cincinnati story about the 27th Annual Midwest Black Family Reunion which took place in August 2015.
According to BuzzFeed, the family photo is among the first Google image results when searching "black family." And what's more, after speaking with Eddie Perry — one of the people in the photo — BuzzFeed determined that the family hadn't known Trump (or anyone else) would be using it.
"When I saw it, I immediately knew it was political propaganda," Perry told the site. He said a friend had sent him a screenshot of the tweet on Saturday morning.
He continued, "Why use it without asking for someone's permission? Why use our image without asking?" Perry told BuzzFeed that his family hasn't publicly endorsed Trump, or any candidate, this election season.
Trump has taken advantage of the sketchy stylings of @Don_Vito_08 before. The watermark on the family photo in the original tweet (@Don_Vito_08's Twitter avi) also appeared on a meme Trump tweeted out [url= https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/712850174838771712?ref_src ="twsrc^tfw"]comparing his wife Melania Trump to Ted Cruz's spouse Heidi Cruz[/url].
But this recent Twitter faux pas comes at a particularly coincidental moment. Trump was recently criticized for his comments at a rally on Friday, when he pointed to a black man in the audience and exclaimed, "Look at my African-American over here!" Trump singled out the man, who NPR identified as a man named Gregory Cheadle, as evidence of his "tremendous African-American support."
"I am not a Trump supporter," Cheadle told NPR. "I went to go hear Donald Trump because I have an open mind."
[Edited on 6/6/2016 by gondicar]