Thread: Trump

amyjared - 2/26/2016 at 11:42 PM

Hey folks,
I never come to the WP, but I need some help. I live in somewhat of a liberal bubble (Eugene, OR) and even the republicans that I talk with are against Trump. So, I know the arguments for and against the dems, and even some gop's, but I don't know the arguments FOR Trump. So, I'm really not looking for anything sarcastic or volatile, but I was hoping for some serious help: If you like and are voting for Trump, can you please enlighten me to the reason(s)? I am trying to make an informed decision and care about your input. Thanks!


2112 - 2/27/2016 at 12:19 AM

Here is a well written article that addresses the reasons to vote for Trump:

http://www.reasonstovotetrump.com


cyclone88 - 2/27/2016 at 03:33 AM

Living in liberal NYC, I don't know anyone who considers Trump to be a viable candidate. My sense is that he's a flashpoint for the frustration, anger, and hopelessness of the electorate.

I haven't read a single article that identifies any particular ideology or viable position he holds that would garner massive support. I think it's his celebrity and anti-establishment message that are getting him votes in the primaries.

I, too, would be interested to hear from Trump supporters just what it is that attracts them.


goldtop - 2/27/2016 at 03:48 AM

I honestly believe he is trying to break the tea party faction of the GOP and he's making sure none of them will get elected....I think he'd rather have Hillary then Cruz or Rubio so he's playing their game by blocking their path as they blocked this whole countries as a part of the Tea movement. His game is to destroy the tea party or to make sure they don't get anymore traction and especially the white house....

It all seems like one big reality TV program....it also shows how sad our country has gotten.....My question is how did we get here...


nebish - 2/27/2016 at 02:24 PM

We got here due to an out of control spending and budget problem in Washington. We got here because of trade deals that favored lifting foreign countries out of poverty while putting more Americans in poverty and Americans see their jobs leave the country. Plus too many people get out of school and can't find work. We got here because a lack of strength in fighting illegal immigration. To name a few.

My appeal with Trump comes and goes depending on my mood. The issue of trade and trade deficits with foreign countries is a big issue with me. That would seem to be Trump's most credible issue. Can he stop US corporations from shifting operations to foreign countries? Can he foreign corporations and imports from negatively effecting domestic jobs and communities? As a single person, with most of the Republicans not sharing his view and Democrats who many do share that view - but will they work with him?

He says he will make deals.

That makes ideological Republicans very nervous. I am not an ideological Republican and I do not think Trump is anything close to that although he has had to play part of that act. I do not want a ideologue from either party.

That is a big thing for me. Many years ago I would've wanted an ideological President from the conservative side of the equation. Then I realized I don't really care about abortion, I don't really care about religion...and in his heart, I'm not sure Trump really cares about those things either unless he has convinced himself he has. I'm ok with a Republican President who acknowledges that Planned Parenthood does some good things. I'm ok with a Republican President who is ok with gays. I'm ok with a Republican President who calls it like it is on the Iraq war.

He is definitely outside of their mold.

I don't need or want some person never willing to compromise and always must dig in to get their way. Make deals. Broker compromises to move things forward. Isn't getting some support from both sides in passing something better than only one side getting their way and the other side being shut out? Everyone wants the cash US companies have sitting outside our country and nobody can figure out how to do it. Is Trump that person to do that?

I'm not sure. As I struggle through those questions I bounce back and forth in my potential support of him.


cyclone88 - 2/27/2016 at 04:52 PM

quote:
I am not an ideological Republican and I do not think Trump is anything close to that although he has had to play part of that act. I do not want a ideologue from either party.

That is a big thing for me. Many years ago I would've wanted an ideological President from the conservative side of the equation. Then I realized I don't really care about abortion, I don't really care about religion...and in his heart, I'm not sure Trump really cares about those things either unless he has convinced himself he has. I'm ok with a Republican President who acknowledges that Planned Parenthood does some good things. I'm ok with a Republican President who is ok with gays. I'm ok with a Republican President who calls it like it is on the Iraq war.

I don't need or want some person never willing to compromise and always must dig in to get their way. Make deals. Broker compromises to move things forward. Isn't getting some support from both sides in passing something better than only one side getting their way and the other side being shut out? Everyone wants the cash US companies have sitting outside our country and nobody can figure out how to do it. Is Trump that person to do that?

I'm not sure. As I struggle through those questions I bounce back and forth in my potential support of him.


That's a cogent explanation of your position. In 2016, it makes sense for Americans to accept that it is not ideologically where it was 50 years ago. Abortion, gay marriage, and equality are facts. They're not going to be erased or repealed. Logically, voters should focus on economic and fiscal issues.

Thanks for telling us about your struggle and the questions you asked yourself. As you point out, citizens don't benefit from rigidity and deadlock.


CB - 2/27/2016 at 05:00 PM

What other HUMBLE YUGE SUPER HERO that knows more than anyone else on the planet and has never been wrong could you possibly vote for? It's an amazing super power to be able to make everything the way you think it should be just by failing to acknowledge that you can't do the things that you say you can.

Build a wall, make Mexico pay for it. Keep terrorist our of the country by asking at customs if they're Muslim. Make all non U. S. born people leave the country. And end 3000 years of fighting in the Middle East.

Oh, and demand an apology from the Pope!

Forget about anything the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and rest of the Constitution provide as the building blockes of the Unites States.

"I want you to want what I want, and if you don't you're stupid."

[Edited on 2/27/2016 by CB]

[Edited on 2/27/2016 by CB]


MartinD28 - 2/27/2016 at 05:14 PM

Has taken on all comers, insulted, pi$$ed on, made fun of, and antagonized his opponents, as well as party members that he would need to 1) support him and 2 ) work with him if hypothetically he got elected. He may be a billionaire, but does anyone really see him as presidential...really? All his talk of brokering deals is much different in a political arena then in Trump's world. He doesn't get to make the rules. His campaign is nothing more than a story line of the WWE.

Tell us Donald - Where is the substance and where are the specifics / details of your game plan to achieve the pie in the sky things you speak of? Still waiting to have him drill down other than to speak at the most general level of things he really can't make happen.

If anyone believes he can win the election, please show the path broken out by voting sectors of the population.

This will be yet another election the GOP loses due to putting up a bad candidate.

[Edited on 2/27/2016 by MartinD28]


bob1954 - 2/27/2016 at 05:26 PM

quote:
I know the arguments for and against the dems, and even some gop's, but I don't know the arguments FOR Trump.

Amy, I'd love to help but for the life of me I just don't get it. If you find valid arguments for Trump please let us know.


BoytonBrother - 2/27/2016 at 07:14 PM

amyjared, his supporters love that he isn't afraid to rage against things and people that he (and many other Americans) hates. He preys on the angry and dysfunctional portion of America by saying what they feel. He's the voice of the angry hateful American and that's what he wants. Unfortunately, we have way too many angry and hateful people in this country.

[Edited on 2/27/2016 by BoytonBrother]


cyclone88 - 2/27/2016 at 07:20 PM

quote:
This will be yet another election the GOP loses due to putting up a bad candidate. [Edited on 2/27/2016 by MartinD28]


I think he's a great CANDIDATE; I think he would be a terrible president.

The GOP is desperate because they now see a Trump candidacy as a blowtorch to other GOP races. Christie throwing his support to Trump was another thumbing at the GOP. Apparently, Romney has been trying to broker support for a single opponent to Trump and can't find one.


pops42 - 2/27/2016 at 07:27 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/12/news/economy/donald-trump-china-mexico-jobs /


Muleman1994 - 2/27/2016 at 07:28 PM

Gov. Christies support for Donald Trump is more proof the the establishment support for Donald Trump continues to grow, just like his poll numbers and massive crowds at rallies.


pops42 - 2/27/2016 at 07:48 PM

quote:
Gov. Christies support for Donald Trump is more proof the the establishment support for Donald Trump continues to grow, just like his poll numbers and massive crowds at rallies.

"There is a SUCKER born every minute" P.T. Barnum https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S48KU8JMKBc

[Edited on 2/27/2016 by pops42]


BIGV - 2/27/2016 at 07:52 PM

quote:
amyjared, his supporters love that he isn't afraid to rage against things and people that he (and many other Americans) hates. He preys on the angry and dysfunctional portion of America by saying what they feel. He's the voice of the angry hateful American and that's what he wants. Unfortunately, we have way too many angry and hateful people in this country.


"Angry".."Dysfunctional".."Hateful".."He preys"....

All code words for fear from the left. Too funny, want to see hate?..Just say you are going to vote for him, then sit back and prepare yourself for the rancor that comes your way.....

quote: by saying what they feel...this is what "Political correctness" has brought us.....Speak your mind and we will label you a bigot, homophobe or racist if you have the audacity to disagree with us!


PhotoRon286 - 2/27/2016 at 07:55 PM

quote:
quote:
Gov. Christies support for Donald Trump is more proof the the establishment support for Donald Trump continues to grow, just like his poll numbers and massive crowds at rallies.

"There is a SUCKER born every minute" P.T. Barnum https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S48KU8JMKBc



Must have bought the "personally signed" version of My Cross to Bear.


MartinD28 - 2/27/2016 at 07:58 PM

quote:
quote:
This will be yet another election the GOP loses due to putting up a bad candidate. [Edited on 2/27/2016 by MartinD28]


I think he's a great CANDIDATE; I think he would be a terrible president.

The GOP is desperate because they now see a Trump candidacy as a blowtorch to other GOP races. Christie throwing his support to Trump was another thumbing at the GOP. Apparently, Romney has been trying to broker support for a single opponent to Trump and can't find one.


I get what you're saying, but if we look at this in its purest since, then we have to conclude that a classification of "great candidate" is a candidate that should win. Otherwise we can accept that a "great candidate" is just that - an exercise in exciting subsets of voters but a candidate who can't win. If the "end" is elect-ability / winning, then I believe he'll fall short. If that is the case, then I'll stick with my point of "This will be yet another election the GOP loses due to putting up a bad candidate."

There are too many voting blocks that the GOP has trouble carrying in national elections, and Trump has gone beyond that with his rhetoric. Alienating voters is not a smart thing unless the calculation is that he believes that by alienating pockets of voters he will pick up even more groups of voters. That's a wild gamble, and in the end, I just don't think he can win.


Muleman1994 - 2/27/2016 at 08:29 PM

Political Science Professor: Odds Of President Trump Range BETWEEN 97% AND 99%

Eric Owens - Education Editor
7:18 PM 02/24/2016

A political science professor who claims his statistical model has correctly predicted the results of every election except for one in the last 104 years has forecast that the odds of Donald Trump becoming Americas next president currently range from 97 percent to 99 percent.
The professor is Helmut Norpoth of Stony Brook University, reports The Statesman, the campus newspaper at the public bastion on New Yorks Long Island.

Specifically, Norpoth predicts that Trump has a 97 percent chance of beating Hillary Clinton and a 99 percent chance of beating Bernie Sanders.

The predictions assume Trump will actually become the 2016 presidential nominee of the Republican Party.

Norpoth announced his prognostication on Monday night during Stony Brook Alumni Association event at the SUNY Global Center in Manhattan.

The bottom line is that the primary model, using also the cyclical movement, makes it almost certain that Donald Trump will be the next president, Norpoth said, according to The Statesman.

When I started out with this kind of display a few months ago, I thought it was sort of a joke, the professor told the alumni audience, according to the student newspaper. Well, Ill tell you right now, it aint a joke anymore.

Trump beats Hillary 54.7 percent to 45.3 percent in terms of popular vote, Norpoth prophesied.

This is almost too much to believe, he told audience members described by the student paper as nervously laughing. But he is convinced his model wont be wrong.

Take it to the bank, Norpoth confidently suggested.

Norpoth, a 1974 University of Michigan Ph.D. recipient who specializes in electoral behavior alignment, said his crystal ball also shows a 61-percent chance that the Republican nominee Trump or not will win the 2016 presidential election.

The political scientist also said there is virtually no way Trump could lose the Electoral College vote if he rakes in 54.7 percent or more of the vote.

Norpoths general election formula measures candidates performances in primaries and caucuses to gauge party unity and voter excitement. It also focuses on certain patterns in electoral cycles. One major assumption is that the party which has just held the presidency for two consecutive terms is less likely to win a third term.

In total, Norpoth observed, his forecasting formula he has created has been correct 96.1 percent of the time since 1912.

The professor said he has used the model in recent times to predict Bill Clintons victories as well as George W. Bushs and Barack Obamas wins.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/24/political-science-professor-odds-of-presi dent-trump-range-between-97-and-99/#ixzz41OxYJe00




cyclone88 - 2/27/2016 at 08:30 PM

quote:
I get what you're saying, but if we look at this in its purest since, then we have to conclude that a classification of "great candidate" is a candidate that should win. Otherwise we can accept that a "great candidate" is just that - an exercise in exciting subsets of voters but a candidate who can't win. If the "end" is elect-ability / winning, then I believe he'll fall short. If that is the case, then I'll stick with my point of "This will be yet another election the GOP loses due to putting up a bad candidate."


True. He can win the nomination but not the election. IMO.

Interesting Trump has such a diverse base of support. There was a program on this topic yesterday on NPR. A caller who identified himself as a former Rand Paul supporter said he's considering Trump or Sanders because ultimately he doesn't care about the abortion/gay marriage/religious talking points anymore. He just wants anti-establishment.




Muleman1994 - 2/27/2016 at 09:26 PM

quote:
quote:
I get what you're saying, but if we look at this in its purest since, then we have to conclude that a classification of "great candidate" is a candidate that should win. Otherwise we can accept that a "great candidate" is just that - an exercise in exciting subsets of voters but a candidate who can't win. If the "end" is elect-ability / winning, then I believe he'll fall short. If that is the case, then I'll stick with my point of "This will be yet another election the GOP loses due to putting up a bad candidate."


True. He can win the nomination but not the election. IMO.

Interesting Trump has such a diverse base of support. There was a program on this topic yesterday on NPR. A caller who identified himself as a former Rand Paul supporter said he's considering Trump or Sanders because ultimately he doesn't care about the abortion/gay marriage/religious talking points anymore. He just wants anti-establishment.
________________________________________________________________________

The democrats issues of abortion/gay marriage/religious talking points are just a deflection from the important issues Americans want talked about and solved.

Almost every national independent legitimate poll shows that those issues are national security, the economy, jobs and their constitutional rights.

Those are the important issues you wont hear discussed at democrat candidate debates and speeches.


MartinD28 - 2/27/2016 at 09:27 PM

quote:
quote:
I get what you're saying, but if we look at this in its purest since, then we have to conclude that a classification of "great candidate" is a candidate that should win. Otherwise we can accept that a "great candidate" is just that - an exercise in exciting subsets of voters but a candidate who can't win. If the "end" is elect-ability / winning, then I believe he'll fall short. If that is the case, then I'll stick with my point of "This will be yet another election the GOP loses due to putting up a bad candidate."


True. He can win the nomination but not the election. IMO.

Interesting Trump has such a diverse base of support. There was a program on this topic yesterday on NPR. A caller who identified himself as a former Rand Paul supporter said he's considering Trump or Sanders because ultimately he doesn't care about the abortion/gay marriage/religious talking points anymore. He just wants anti-establishment.






He does have a base - many of the angry voters & many standard GOP voters who will vote for him. I have seen stats where 20 + pct. of Republicans said they'll never vote for him.

Re: diverse support - Women make up biggest voting block, & in national election I doubt he takes that significant segment of voters. He won't win the black vote, and with his "kind" words he can write off Hispanics where he's got an unfavorable rating of about 80%. Then there is the Muslim vote - another of his favorite targets, and I'm guessing he'd be in the single digits at best.


Muleman1994 - 2/27/2016 at 09:50 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
I get what you're saying, but if we look at this in its purest since, then we have to conclude that a classification of "great candidate" is a candidate that should win. Otherwise we can accept that a "great candidate" is just that - an exercise in exciting subsets of voters but a candidate who can't win. If the "end" is elect-ability / winning, then I believe he'll fall short. If that is the case, then I'll stick with my point of "This will be yet another election the GOP loses due to putting up a bad candidate."


True. He can win the nomination but not the election. IMO.

Interesting Trump has such a diverse base of support. There was a program on this topic yesterday on NPR. A caller who identified himself as a former Rand Paul supporter said he's considering Trump or Sanders because ultimately he doesn't care about the abortion/gay marriage/religious talking points anymore. He just wants anti-establishment.






He does have a base - many of the angry voters & many standard GOP voters who will vote for him. I have seen stats where 20 + pct. of Republicans said they'll never vote for him.

Re: diverse support - Women make up biggest voting block, & in national election I doubt he takes that significant segment of voters. He won't win the black vote, and with his "kind" words he can write off Hispanics where he's got an unfavorable rating of about 80%. Then there is the Muslim vote - another of his favorite targets, and I'm guessing he'd be in the single digits at best.

________________________________________________________________________

"20 + pct. of Republicans said they'll never vote for him" - was that from the editorial pages of The NYT or WAPO?
You didn't mention that Donald Trump is getting the votes of over half of the so-called "independents".

Hillary Clinton's unfavorable numbers top every legitimate poll.



pops42 - 2/27/2016 at 10:21 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I get what you're saying, but if we look at this in its purest since, then we have to conclude that a classification of "great candidate" is a candidate that should win. Otherwise we can accept that a "great candidate" is just that - an exercise in exciting subsets of voters but a candidate who can't win. If the "end" is elect-ability / winning, then I believe he'll fall short. If that is the case, then I'll stick with my point of "This will be yet another election the GOP loses due to putting up a bad candidate."


True. He can win the nomination but not the election. IMO.

Interesting Trump has such a diverse base of support. There was a program on this topic yesterday on NPR. A caller who identified himself as a former Rand Paul supporter said he's considering Trump or Sanders because ultimately he doesn't care about the abortion/gay marriage/religious talking points anymore. He just wants anti-establishment.






He does have a base - many of the angry voters & many standard GOP voters who will vote for him. I have seen stats where 20 + pct. of Republicans said they'll never vote for him.

Re: diverse support - Women make up biggest voting block, & in national election I doubt he takes that significant segment of voters. He won't win the black vote, and with his "kind" words he can write off Hispanics where he's got an unfavorable rating of about 80%. Then there is the Muslim vote - another of his favorite targets, and I'm guessing he'd be in the single digits at best.

________________________________________________________________________

"20 + pct. of Republicans said they'll never vote for him" - was that from the editorial pages of The NYT or WAPO?
You didn't mention that Donald Trump is getting the votes of over half of the so-called "independents".

Hillary Clinton's unfavorable numbers top every legitimate poll.



Clinton will be the next president, get the cryin towels ready BOY.


cyclone88 - 2/27/2016 at 10:53 PM

quote:

Re: diverse support - Women make up biggest voting block, & in national election I doubt he takes that significant segment of voters. He won't win the black vote, and with his "kind" words he can write off Hispanics where he's got an unfavorable rating of about 80%. Then there is the Muslim vote - another of his favorite targets, and I'm guessing he'd be in the single digits at best.


I'm still back at will he get the nomination. One thing that many talking heads get wrong is that "women" are a category. There are white, hispanic, black, asian, and other women of various religions and levels of education. I've read articles - most notably by Gloria Steinheim - that she's shocked "women" aren't voting for Hillary in order to elect the first woman president. Young women voters don't see that as a deal breaker or maker; they vote on issues.

But hey, Trump loves "undereducated people" so I guess that's a separate category to consider.


Muleman1994 - 2/27/2016 at 11:10 PM

quote:
quote:

Re: diverse support - Women make up biggest voting block, & in national election I doubt he takes that significant segment of voters. He won't win the black vote, and with his "kind" words he can write off Hispanics where he's got an unfavorable rating of about 80%. Then there is the Muslim vote - another of his favorite targets, and I'm guessing he'd be in the single digits at best.


I'm still back at will he get the nomination. One thing that many talking heads get wrong is that "women" are a category. There are white, hispanic, black, asian, and other women of various religions and levels of education. I've read articles - most notably by Gloria Steinheim - that she's shocked "women" aren't voting for Hillary in order to elect the first woman president. Young women voters don't see that as a deal breaker or maker; they vote on issues.

But hey, Trump loves "undereducated people" so I guess that's a separate category to consider.



________________________________________________________________________

Few women pay any attention to the old dykes club in general and Gloria Steinheim in particular.

That is probably why younger women are not voting for Hillary Clinton.

For most, a female president would be great as long as she is not corrupt and a liar.



geordielad - 2/27/2016 at 11:16 PM

Lowest common denominator, appeals to everyone's prejudices.....


2112 - 2/28/2016 at 12:12 AM

quote:
quote:

Re: diverse support - Women make up biggest voting block, & in national election I doubt he takes that significant segment of voters. He won't win the black vote, and with his "kind" words he can write off Hispanics where he's got an unfavorable rating of about 80%. Then there is the Muslim vote - another of his favorite targets, and I'm guessing he'd be in the single digits at best.


I'm still back at will he get the nomination. One thing that many talking heads get wrong is that "women" are a category. There are white, hispanic, black, asian, and other women of various religions and levels of education. I've read articles - most notably by Gloria Steinheim - that she's shocked "women" aren't voting for Hillary in order to elect the first woman president. Young women voters don't see that as a deal breaker or maker; they vote on issues.

But hey, Trump loves "undereducated people" so I guess that's a separate category to consider.




Under educated people are his specialty. He even had a "university" to take advantage of them.


MartinD28 - 2/28/2016 at 12:37 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:

Re: diverse support - Women make up biggest voting block, & in national election I doubt he takes that significant segment of voters. He won't win the black vote, and with his "kind" words he can write off Hispanics where he's got an unfavorable rating of about 80%. Then there is the Muslim vote - another of his favorite targets, and I'm guessing he'd be in the single digits at best.


I'm still back at will he get the nomination. One thing that many talking heads get wrong is that "women" are a category. There are white, hispanic, black, asian, and other women of various religions and levels of education. I've read articles - most notably by Gloria Steinheim - that she's shocked "women" aren't voting for Hillary in order to elect the first woman president. Young women voters don't see that as a deal breaker or maker; they vote on issues.

But hey, Trump loves "undereducated people" so I guess that's a separate category to consider.




Under educated people are his specialty. He even had a "university" to take advantage of them.


If you call that a university. Expect Teddy & Marco to hit him more on that fallacy of a university in the coming weeks.

Ironic that the undereducated people flock to Trump. Maybe they think he'll lead them down the path to "everyone can be a billionaire".


MartinD28 - 2/28/2016 at 12:47 AM

quote:
quote:

Re: diverse support - Women make up biggest voting block, & in national election I doubt he takes that significant segment of voters. He won't win the black vote, and with his "kind" words he can write off Hispanics where he's got an unfavorable rating of about 80%. Then there is the Muslim vote - another of his favorite targets, and I'm guessing he'd be in the single digits at best.


I'm still back at will he get the nomination. One thing that many talking heads get wrong is that "women" are a category. There are white, hispanic, black, asian, and other women of various religions and levels of education. I've read articles - most notably by Gloria Steinheim - that she's shocked "women" aren't voting for Hillary in order to elect the first woman president. Young women voters don't see that as a deal breaker or maker; they vote on issues.

But hey, Trump loves "undereducated people" so I guess that's a separate category to consider.




I was put off by the Steiheim mantra. On the other hand "women" are a category and what you correctly described would fall into subcategories. I will go on record right now and say that whoever the Dem. candidate is will win the "women" vote regardless of who the GOP candidate is. With his attitude towards women and repulsive comments, Trump would do worse than anyone else the GOP would nominate. (see Megyn Kelly for but one example).

But, hey listen to Trump, and he will tell you how much everyone loves him. Talk condescendingly to people, and they will come out in droves to vote for him...pretty simple, Donald...right?


pops42 - 2/28/2016 at 12:50 AM

trump stated, "if I'm elected, ill do away with the EPA and the Dept. of education". and he LOVES the undereducated!............ they are his supporters!.

[Edited on 2/28/2016 by pops42]


Muleman1994 - 2/28/2016 at 12:59 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:

Re: diverse support - Women make up biggest voting block, & in national election I doubt he takes that significant segment of voters. He won't win the black vote, and with his "kind" words he can write off Hispanics where he's got an unfavorable rating of about 80%. Then there is the Muslim vote - another of his favorite targets, and I'm guessing he'd be in the single digits at best.


I'm still back at will he get the nomination. One thing that many talking heads get wrong is that "women" are a category. There are white, hispanic, black, asian, and other women of various religions and levels of education. I've read articles - most notably by Gloria Steinheim - that she's shocked "women" aren't voting for Hillary in order to elect the first woman president. Young women voters don't see that as a deal breaker or maker; they vote on issues.

But hey, Trump loves "undereducated people" so I guess that's a separate category to consider.




I was put off by the Steiheim mantra. On the other hand "women" are a category and what you correctly described would fall into subcategories. I will go on record right now and say that whoever the Dem. candidate is will win the "women" vote regardless of who the GOP candidate is. With his attitude towards women and repulsive comments, Trump would do worse than anyone else the GOP would nominate. (see Megyn Kelly for but one example).

But, hey listen to Trump, and he will tell you how much everyone loves him. Talk condescendingly to people, and they will come out in droves to vote for him...pretty simple, Donald...right?

________________________________________________________________________

However the liberal media portrays Donald Trump his campaign is working out very well.
He sure does appreciate the front page free media.


BIGV - 2/28/2016 at 12:59 AM

quote:
Clinton will be the next president


Dear God, please, no.


MartinD28 - 2/28/2016 at 01:05 AM

quote:
trump stated, "if I'm elected, ill do away with the EPA and the Dept. of education". and he LOVES the undereducated!............ they are his supporters!.

[Edited on 2/28/2016 by pops42]


Trump got 2 out of 2. Last election Rick Perry could only get 2 out of 3.


Muleman1994 - 2/28/2016 at 01:07 AM

It could be difficult for Hillary Clinton to get votes when under indictment (multiple counts) of criminal violations of The Espionage Act and corruption.

Joe Biden is in waiting.


nebish - 2/28/2016 at 01:15 AM

quote:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/12/news/economy/donald-trump-china-mexic o-jobs/


Thanks for posting that.

quote:
Many of the jobs lost were in factories that made toys, clothing, furniture and other labor-intensive industries, which were relatively low-skilled. The manufacturing jobs that return will involve more technology and require more education and training, he said.

"More stuff will be made here, but it won't be by the same laid-off workers from textile and leather plants," Autor said.


PLEASE tell me that all that money the federal government has spent in TRA isn't going to go wasted.

We allow the companies to outsource the jobs, we pay for education and training programs for the displaced workers. The people should have training!

I refuse to fall for the free trade global economy lie. It doesn't have to be that way. Open your eyes America.

quote:
Also, Americans benefit from cheaper goods made overseas. This is particularly true for poor and middle class Americans, who spend much more of their earnings on imported products, Lawrence said. Items manufactured in the United States will likely cost more.

"You'll see a huge increase in the cost of living for Americans," he said.


OK, so we won't have $50 mircowaves. We won't have $100 kitchen tables that seat 4.

Another lie. It doesn't have to be that way. Quality products made with quality components cost more and the benefit is they last longer meaning you have to replace less often and maybe they wiill even provide you with a decent job with decent benefits when you work at the factory making a Made in USA microwave and kitchen table. Plus instead of living in a disposable society where the cheap piece of big box store garbage fails in a year and you have to buy another one, we can actually repair things again. You know things that are worth keeping because they are good, you want to repair it to keep it. And that employs people who repair the items as well.

Screw Vietnamese furniture. I mean **** Vietnamese furniture.

You can't get a brand new couch for $99 now? Well maybe you can get a job making a couch in American and provide for your family instead of looking at a call center or cash register job.

EVERYONE! The free trading globalists in academia have been wrong for over half a century now. Do not fall for it. How we doing so far? This is not a left - right issue. It is an American issue!!!!!!!!


MartinD28 - 2/28/2016 at 01:21 AM

quote:
quote:
Clinton will be the next president


Dear God, please, no.


So who is your preference?


Muleman1994 - 2/28/2016 at 01:26 AM

quote:
quote:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/12/news/economy/donald-trump-china -mexico-jobs/


Thanks for posting that.

quote:
Many of the jobs lost were in factories that made toys, clothing, furniture and other labor-intensive industries, which were relatively low-skilled. The manufacturing jobs that return will involve more technology and require more education and training, he said.

"More stuff will be made here, but it won't be by the same laid-off workers from textile and leather plants," Autor said.


PLEASE tell me that all that money the federal government has spent in TRA isn't going to go wasted.

We allow the companies to outsource the jobs, we pay for education and training programs for the displaced workers. The people should have training!

I refuse to fall for the free trade global economy lie. It doesn't have to be that way. Open your eyes America.

quote:
Also, Americans benefit from cheaper goods made overseas. This is particularly true for poor and middle class Americans, who spend much more of their earnings on imported products, Lawrence said. Items manufactured in the United States will likely cost more.

"You'll see a huge increase in the cost of living for Americans," he said.


OK, so we won't have $50 mircowaves. We won't have $100 kitchen tables that seat 4.

Another lie. It doesn't have to be that way. Quality products made with quality components cost more and the benefit is they last longer meaning you have to replace less often and maybe they wiill even provide you with a decent job with decent benefits when you work at the factory making a Made in USA microwave and kitchen table. Plus instead of living in a disposable society where the cheap piece of big box store garbage fails in a year and you have to buy another one, we can actually repair things again. You know things that are worth keeping because they are good, you want to repair it to keep it. And that employs people who repair the items as well.

Screw Vietnamese furniture. I mean **** Vietnamese furniture.

You can't get a brand new couch for $99 now? Well maybe you can get a job making a couch in American and provide for your family instead of looking at a call center or cash register job.

EVERYONE! The free trading globalists in academia have been wrong for over half a century now. Do not fall for it. How we doing so far? This is not a left - right issue. It is an American issue!!!!!!!!

_________________________________________________________________________

Just another good reason to vote for Trump.

American goods have massive tariffs imposed on them when exported while foreign product come into the U.S. virtually tariff free.

Donald Trump is a master negotiator and will get us much better deals and stop China from manipulating their currency.

Obama will not. He needs China to keep buying the debt Obama keeps racking up.




BoytonBrother - 2/28/2016 at 02:09 AM

trump will be President. It's a slam dunk. They will come out in droves and vote him in as payback for their suffering through Obama. even though they know he is bad for the country, they will vote him in anyways purely out of spite.


BIGV - 2/28/2016 at 02:16 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Clinton will be the next president


Dear God, please, no.


So who is your preference?


In all seriousness, I am at a loss. I was leaning towards Rubio until the last debate where I watched him lower himself to Trump's level. Now, I've no idea.....


jkeller - 2/28/2016 at 02:26 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Clinton will be the next president


Dear God, please, no.


So who is your preference?


In all seriousness, I am at a loss. I was leaning towards Rubio until the last debate where I watched him lower himself to Trump's level. Now, I've no idea.....


Sure. Because attacking everyone is easier than defending someone, which is all that you and muleboy ever do.


BIGV - 2/28/2016 at 02:59 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Clinton will be the next president


Dear God, please, no.


So who is your preference?


In all seriousness, I am at a loss. I was leaning towards Rubio until the last debate where I watched him lower himself to Trump's level. Now, I've no idea.....


Sure. Because attacking everyone is easier than defending someone, which is all that you and muleboy ever do.


Examples of my attacking people, please.


pops42 - 2/28/2016 at 03:07 AM

quote:
It could be difficult for Hillary Clinton to get votes when under indictment (multiple counts) of criminal violations of The Espionage Act and corruption.

Joe Biden is in waiting.

Keep on dreaming, meat-puppet.


cyclone88 - 2/28/2016 at 12:16 PM

Back to the original question (sort of), how do people outside NYC where Trump's been a tabloid presence most of his adult life, how do people even know who he is? Does he have celebrity status from The Apprentice? Is he just some rich businessman like Perot?


Muleman1994 - 2/28/2016 at 03:39 PM

quote:
Back to the original question (sort of), how do people outside NYC where Trump's been a tabloid presence most of his adult life, how do people even know who he is? Does he have celebrity status from The Apprentice? Is he just some rich businessman like Perot?

________________________________________________________________________

From the same sources as any highly public figure assuming you know how to glean facts and ignore the opinion.

BTW - Ross Perot couldn't hold a candle to Donald Trump business success.


cyclone88 - 2/28/2016 at 05:22 PM

quote:
From the same sources as any highly public figure


So, from tv. He wasn't a public figure until he started doing The Apprentice. He was one of dozens of NYC real estate developers.

Check your facts re Perot; he is the son of a sharecropper, inherited zero, and is worth, according to Forbes, $4.0 billion at age 85. Trump, who worked in and shared profits from his father and brother's real estate business before going off on his own, is worth $4.5 billion and even he admits Forbes "over-rated him, but it made borrowing money easier." He's also said he made more money from The Apprentice than real estate.

Anyone have a genuine answer?


nebish - 2/28/2016 at 05:50 PM

quote:
Back to the original question (sort of), how do people outside NYC where Trump's been a tabloid presence most of his adult life, how do people even know who he is? Does he have celebrity status from The Apprentice? Is he just some rich businessman like Perot?


I think he has just always been around. I can remember his name being mentioned by my parents maybe 20 years ago. Either he was in business news, or had a book or one thing or the other.

Kind of like Jack Welch or any businessperson who has just been "around". Some people have just been in the news and mixed business life with books, interviews, etc.

Some people likely know him only from the Apprentice. I don't know anyone who watched that show, but even if you didn't watch it and watched some late night TV or whatever you heard about it. "you're fired' - right. I mean that show probably elevated the national awareness of him if nothing else.

If you wanted to say he is just some rich businessman that has always been around that would probably be correct. I think he was rather well known nationally by people over a certain age well before the Apprentice.


nebish - 2/28/2016 at 05:58 PM

quote:
trump will be President. It's a slam dunk. They will come out in droves and vote him in as payback for their suffering through Obama. even though they know he is bad for the country, they will vote him in anyways purely out of spite.


Some people will vote for him no matter what yes. I think some people like myself are pretty cautious, perhaps even nervous about it.

I've always thought that he will do or say something that will sink him, which definitely could still happen. Watch the debates and the campaign with Hillary. There is a very big chance that something happens which will sour alot of people on the fence with him.

I really think it is amazing the numbers he is getting. As everyone probably knows, he got more votes in Nevada himself than all Republicans combined got in 2012. 3 states in a row with record turnout, as Trump says "I think I have something to do with that". So I think it is almost a slam dunk he is the nominee, but I would definitely stop short of saying he beats Hillary as a slam dunk. Although, with such low voter turn out in the Democrat primaries there is valid concern with her support irregardless of who the Republicans run against her. Not sure how SC turnout was vs previous years though.


cyclone88 - 2/28/2016 at 06:00 PM

Right. I forgot about The Art of the Deal. He did make the rounds on that in the late 1980s. Thanks.


BoytonBrother - 2/28/2016 at 08:12 PM

Interesting piece by Michael Smerconish on how Trump might be counting on low voter turnout for moderates and Democrats.


The Pulse: Is math on Trump's side?
by Michael Smerconish, Inquirer Columnist.

I'm a genius. Donald Trump said so. It must be true.

His observation came the night of his impressive victory in South Carolina, after I noted on CNN that the total vote garnered by Marco Rubio (22.5 percent), Jeb Bush (7.8), and John Kasich (7.6) bested his total (37.9 vs. 32.5).

My observation that a coalescing of the establishment vote could topple Trump was also something I'd tweeted: (Marco + Kasich + Jeb = more than Trump. But it needs to happen soon or it will be too late. "Hello John . . . it's Marco calling.") Many have since made similar observations. But minutes after I said it on TV, Trump claimed victory in Spartanburg, introduced his family, and then said this:

"So I was watching upstairs and it was really amazing to be watching what I was watching. . . . But a number of the pundits said, 'Well, if a couple of the other candidates dropped out, if you add their scores together, it's going to equal Trump.'

"But these geniuses - they're geniuses - they don't understand that as people drop out, I'm going to get a lot of those votes also. . . .

"You don't just add them together. So I think we're going to do very, very well. I think we're going to do very well."


Among the many things wrong with Trump as a human being and as a candidate is his apparent need to articulate this complaint. And the numbers don't lie. Trump is both the leading - and most unpopular - Republican in the race. The latest Quinnipiac University poll (released Feb. 17) confirmed that while Trump has built a 2-1 lead among all Republicans nationwide, he is also leading in the category of candidate "you would definitively not support." A full 28 percent of Republicans say they would never support Trump's bid for the nomination. And he is even more unpopular among all Americans.

As Frank Newport, the editor-in-chief of Gallup, recently observed: "Most political and media commentators have at this point installed Donald Trump as the GOP front-runner. . . . But this narrative tends to obscure the fact that Trump is the most unpopular candidate of either party when the entire U.S. population is taken into account - and that he has a higher unfavorable rating than any nominated candidate from either of the two major parties going back to the 1992 election, when we began to track favorability using the current format."

According to Gallup daily tracking last month (Jan. 14-27), 60 percent of all Americans view Trump unfavorably, while only 33 percent view him favorably.

That he is nonetheless succeeding is attributable to a combination of factors, including exodus, passion, and neglect - the exodus from the Republican Party by those unhappy with its angry, rightward tilt; the passion of Trump supporters, which translates into participation during primary and caucus season; and the neglect by those Americans who continue to cede our political debate to those with the loudest voices.

California provides a great insight into migration from the GOP. (Don't laugh - the state that gave us the hula hoop, Ronald Reagan, and property-tax revolts is often on the vanguard of social change.) Last week I spoke to the Orange County Business Council in the location once recognized as the hotbed of American conservatism. Orange County was the birthplace of both the John Birch Society and Richard Nixon. But amid the crowd of 700 to whom I spoke were many who wanted to share with me their stories of being Republicans in exile. Today, Orange County's demographics are majority minority, and soon its independents will outnumber Republicans.

Last week, Secretary of State Alex Padilla revealed that 24 percent of California voters are now "no party preference," an uptick from 2008 when slightly less than one in five checked this box. Democrats are 43 percent of the state's voters, while Republicans are now less than 28 percent.


And it's the GOP that has most been affected by registration changes. Its ranks have fallen by 7 percent since 2006, the last year in which a Republican won statewide. Nationwide, according to a Gallup survey last month, 42 percent of Americans now regard themselves as independent rather than Republican or Democratic.

Many of those Republicans left behind are a hostile, angry lot and their antipathy toward a government headed by Barack Obama gives them motivation to participate in what is otherwise a low-interest process. CNN's entrance surveys for the Nevada caucus revealed that 59 percent of attendees are very angry at the federal government. Trump garnered 49 percent of these voters. That he's been able to harness emotion taps into a reality of American politics well documented in 2014 by Pew Research Center:

"Many of those in the center remain on the edges of the political playing field, relatively distant and disengaged, while the most ideologically oriented and politically rancorous Americans make their voices heard through greater participation in every stage of the political process."

That's the mathematical calculation Trump is counting on - that good men and women will do nothing, at least for the next few weeks, enabling him to triumph by capturing the Republican nomination.

Michael Smerconish can be heard from 9 a.m. to noon on SiriusXM's POTUS Channel 124 and seen hosting "Smerconish" at 9 a.m. Saturdays on CNN.

http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=/philly/opinion&id=370341731


Muleman1994 - 2/29/2016 at 09:40 PM

This keeps getting better every day.

Over the next two weeks the candidate of choice of the WP liberals here will be eliminated.

Obama, The DNC, Wall Street and the democrat party elite long ago decided that the corrupt and liar Hillary Clinton will be the democratic party nominee for president. Your primary vote does not matter; they dont care what you think.

The only question that remains are how many of the WP liberals will be outside of the courthouse during Hillary Clintons trial holding signs and hollering Free Hillary, Free Hillary!

Will yall switch form Bernie Sanders to the Hooker of Wall Street?


Swifty - 2/29/2016 at 10:55 PM

quote:
This keeps getting better every day.

Over the next two weeks the candidate of choice of the WP liberals here will be eliminated.

Obama, The DNC, Wall Street and the democrat party elite long ago decided that the corrupt and liar Hillary Clinton will be the democratic party nominee for president. Your primary vote does not matter; they dont care what you think.

The only question that remains are how many of the WP liberals will be outside of the courthouse during Hillary Clintons trial holding signs and hollering Free Hillary, Free Hillary!

Will yall switch form Bernie Sanders to the Hooker of Wall Street?



Republicans are saying the end of their party is near. I take it that you were not important enough to inform.


BoytonBrother - 2/29/2016 at 11:31 PM

I'll admit that after hearing Hillary debate, she is incredibly disappointing. Not a sincere word yet if you ask me. Just sounds phony 100% of the time, which only makes her sound like she is hiding something. I want Bernie, but I don't see how he has any chance at all, so I'm hoping Rubio gets it.

[Edited on 3/1/2016 by BoytonBrother]


BillyBlastoff - 2/29/2016 at 11:33 PM

quote:
This keeps getting better every day.

Over the next two weeks the candidate of choice of the WP liberals here will be eliminated.

Obama, The DNC, Wall Street and the democrat party elite long ago decided that the corrupt and liar Hillary Clinton will be the democratic party nominee for president. Your primary vote does not matter; they dont care what you think.

The only question that remains are how many of the WP liberals will be outside of the courthouse during Hillary Clintons trial holding signs and hollering Free Hillary, Free Hillary!

Will yall switch form Bernie Sanders to the Hooker of Wall Street?


Right. America wins when the White Supremacist becomes President and his real world hooker becomes First Lady.

My vote counts just as much as yours Dumb Ass. In fact, Hillary has had to tack left due to Bernie. I'll never see all the change I want to see in America but the country is certainly more liberal than when I was a child. It takes time but I believe this country is on the right path. Eventually our lust for Empire will be replaced by a new age of enlightenment where voices like yours will not be tolerated.

Go yell fire in someone else's theatre Son.


BillyBlastoff - 3/1/2016 at 12:08 AM

The New York Times is sitting on information from January that will reveal Donald is lying about his stance on immigration. Of course hard blighted right wingers won't believe the source. Donald lies more than anyone else to ever run for President yet some blighted right wingers want to make honesty a central issue of this campaign.

Man it would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

quote:
The New York Times is sitting on an audio recording that some of its staff believes could deal a serious blow to Donald Trump, who, in an off-the-record meeting with the newspaper, called into question whether he would stand by his own immigration views.

Trump visited the papers Manhattan headquarters on Tuesday, Jan. 5, as part of a round of editorial board meetings that as is traditional the Democratic candidates for president and some of the Republicans attended. The meetings, conducted partly on the record and partly off the record in a 13th-floor conference room, give candidates a chance to make their pitch for the papers endorsement.

After a dispute over Trumps suggestion of tariffs on Chinese goods, the Times released a portion of the recording. But that was from the on-the-record part of the session.

On Saturday, columnist Gail Collins, one of the attendees at the meeting (which also included editor-in-chief Dean Baquet), floated a bit of speculation in her column: The most optimistic analysis of Trump as a presidential candidate is that he just doesnt believe in positions, except the ones you adopt for strategic purposes when youre making a deal. So you obviously cant explain how youre going to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, because its going to be the first bid in some future monster negotiation session.

Sources familiar with the recording and transcript which have reached near-mythical status at the Times tell me that the second sentence is a bit more than speculation. It reflects, instead, something Trump said about the flexibility of his hardline anti-immigration stance.
So what exactly did Trump say about immigration, about deportations, about the wall? Did he abandon a core promise of his campaign in a private conversation with liberal power brokers in New York?

I wasnt able to obtain the recording, or the transcript, and dont know exactly what Trump said. Neither Baquet, Collins, nor various editorial board members I reached would comment on an off-the-record conversation, which the Times essentially said it cannot release without approval from Trump, given the nature of the off-the-record agreement.

Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal told me he would not comment on what was off the record at our meeting with him.

If [Trump] wants to call up and ask us to release this transcript, hes free to do that and then we can decide what we would do, Rosenthal said.

Trump, whose spokeswoman didnt respond immediately to an email, can resolve this mystery: He can ask the Times to release the tape. Will he?


http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/trump-tape#.js1BLR3Mrv


OriginalGoober - 3/1/2016 at 03:15 AM

News flash: The times has a hit piece on a republican presidential candidate teased by Leftist Gail Collins.

Yawn.

[Edited on 3/1/2016 by OriginalGoober]


gondicar - 3/1/2016 at 11:39 AM

Still a long way to go, but as of today...

National poll: Clinton, Sanders both top Trump

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/01/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bernie- sanders-poll/index.html



[Edited on 3/1/2016 by gondicar]


OriginalGoober - 3/1/2016 at 03:55 PM

There is a full court press to help push Rubio past Trump by the establishment with the complicit media. In 72 hours Trump has been labeled a racist, fascist, and a Nazi all in the mainstream press. Not to mention secret recordings and bombshell tax returns. Two torpedoes that sank Romney so its being tried again in this election cycle.


Inexperienced Rubio is the establishments last hope .


[Edited on 3/1/2016 by OriginalGoober]


gondicar - 3/1/2016 at 04:06 PM

quote:

There is a full court press to help push Rubio past Trump by the establishment with the complicit media. In 72 hours Trump has been labeled a racist, fascist, and a Nazi all in the mainstream press.

Inexperienced Rubio is the establishments last hope .



Trump has been labeled those things often over the last 72 weeks, not just hours. Although I'm sure the lies he's been telling this week about not knowing who David Duke is has ratcheted that up a bit...

Trump in 1991 (talking about Duke's failed gubanatorial bid and possible white house run):
Larry King: "If he runs and Pat Buchanan runs [for president in 1992], might you see a really divided vote?"

Trump: "Well, I think if they run, or even if David Duke I mean, George Bush was very, very strong against David Duke. I think if he had it to do again, he might not have gotten involved in that campaign because I think David Duke now, if he runs, takes away almost exclusively Bush votes and then a guy like Cuomo runs I think Cuomo can win the election."

King: "But Bush morally had to come out against him."

Trump: "I think Bush had to come out against him. I think Bush if David Duke runs, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes. Whether that be good or bad, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes. Pat Buchanan who really has many of the same theories, except its in a better package Pat Buchanan is going to take a lot of votes away from George Bush. So if you have these two guys running, or even one of them running, I think George Bush could be in big trouble."

Trump in 2000:
"Well, youve got David Duke just joined a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party. Buchanans a disaster as weve, you know, covered. Jesses a terrific guy who just left the party. And he, you know, its unfortunate, but he just left the party. Hes going to be doing his Independence Party from Minnesota."

"The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This not company I wish to keep."

Trump 2 days ago:
"Well, just so you understand, I dont know anything about David Duke. OK? I dont know anything about what youre even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I dont know."

[Edited on 3/1/2016 by gondicar]


OriginalGoober - 3/1/2016 at 04:15 PM


Whether you believe it or not, Trump stated he had a malfunctioning ear piece and had trouble hearing.

Trump has allowed access to himself by the media and if Nate Silver would do the statistics, I would not be surprised if Trump media coverage ( by his own choice, btw) is at a 100:1 ratio or words spoken to the press would be 10,000 :1 ratio as compared to Hillary or Bernie.

Now the focus is on a few sentences about a guy he denounced in 2000 and again denounced shortly after the interview.

Like I said , its a full court press to bring him down. I have never seen anything like this.


gondicar - 3/1/2016 at 04:20 PM

quote:

Whether you believe it or not, Trump stated he had a malfunctioning ear piece and had trouble hearing.


Do you believe it? I know I don't, and even if you do it certainly doesn't explain why he'd say "I dont know anything about David Duke" when he clearly knows exactly who David Duke is and what he stands for. Trump has continuously lied throughout his campaign, it comes way too easy to him.


OriginalGoober - 3/1/2016 at 04:25 PM



Have you seen the photo of Hillary kissing Robert Byrd. This is not in the news at all but wasn't he in the same category as Duke . The media is sure focusing on one and not the other.


gondicar - 3/1/2016 at 04:38 PM

quote:
Have you seen the photo of Hillary kissing Robert Byrd. This is not in the news at all but wasn't he in the same category as Duke . The media is sure focusing on one and not the other.

You really can't figure out why they are focusing on one and not the other? Here's a hint: Byrd died years ago (and before that he endorsed Obama not Hillary in 2008) and Duke just endorsed Trump this week.

Of course it is silly to compare Byrd and Duke in the first place, but if you think they are "in the same category" then I don't really expect you to understand that.





[Edited on 3/1/2016 by gondicar]


Muleman1994 - 3/1/2016 at 05:06 PM

quote:
quote:

There is a full court press to help push Rubio past Trump by the establishment with the complicit media. In 72 hours Trump has been labeled a racist, fascist, and a Nazi all in the mainstream press.

Inexperienced Rubio is the establishments last hope .



Trump has been labeled those things often over the last 72 weeks, not just hours. Although I'm sure the lies he's been telling this week about not knowing who David Duke is has ratcheted that up a bit...

Trump in 1991 (talking about Duke's failed gubanatorial bid and possible white house run):
Larry King: "If he runs and Pat Buchanan runs [for president in 1992], might you see a really divided vote?"

Trump: "Well, I think if they run, or even if David Duke I mean, George Bush was very, very strong against David Duke. I think if he had it to do again, he might not have gotten involved in that campaign because I think David Duke now, if he runs, takes away almost exclusively Bush votes and then a guy like Cuomo runs I think Cuomo can win the election."

King: "But Bush morally had to come out against him."

Trump: "I think Bush had to come out against him. I think Bush if David Duke runs, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes. Whether that be good or bad, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes. Pat Buchanan who really has many of the same theories, except its in a better package Pat Buchanan is going to take a lot of votes away from George Bush. So if you have these two guys running, or even one of them running, I think George Bush could be in big trouble."

Trump in 2000:
"Well, youve got David Duke just joined a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party. Buchanans a disaster as weve, you know, covered. Jesses a terrific guy who just left the party. And he, you know, its unfortunate, but he just left the party. Hes going to be doing his Independence Party from Minnesota."

"The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This not company I wish to keep."

Trump 2 days ago:
"Well, just so you understand, I dont know anything about David Duke. OK? I dont know anything about what youre even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I dont know."
________________________________________________________________________

You conveniently did not mention that Donald Trump clearly and succinctly disavowed David Duke in a televised press conference from Ft. Worth last Friday.

Not surprisingly we dont hear from the left anyone calling for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to publically reject Black Lives Matter, the militant organization openly calling for the killing of police officers.

Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have pandered to Black Lives Matter whereas Donald Trump openly rejects The Klan.

You seem all upset about "white supremacists", who Donald Trump has disavowed and "black militants", supported by Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, are fine with you.



Bhawk - 3/1/2016 at 05:10 PM

quote:
There is a full court press to help push Rubio past Trump by the establishment with the complicit media. In 72 hours Trump has been labeled a racist, fascist, and a Nazi all in the mainstream press. Not to mention secret recordings and bombshell tax returns. Two torpedoes that sank Romney so its being tried again in this election cycle.


Inexperienced Rubio is the establishments last hope .



It really is amazing how we all see things differently.

I see a media in the bag for Trump. Everyone everywhere the last 24 hours has been predicting a Trump blowout today.

One could make a case that reporting that message would influence on-the-fence-about-voting voters to just say "why bother?"

This year, 1,237 delegates are needed to win the GOP nomination. There are a total of 2,340 available.

Going into today, the delegate totals are:
Trump 82
Cruz 17
Rubio 16

595 delegates up for grabs today, but those are proportionally awarded. Winner-take-all doesn't apply until all the primaries that occur on or after March 15th.

Cruz and Rubio are very much in this whole thing, but, you wouldn't know it. As you have pointed out, Trump gets all this free press...odd for a media that seemingly wants to destroy him, no?

As to the accusations and such flying around, don't blame the media. They have entire staffs of people living every second to report absolutely anything that happens. Primary politics is as dirty as it gets and if you don't think this stuff comes from the campaigns and the PACs, look deeper.


heineken515 - 3/1/2016 at 05:12 PM

quote:
Of course it is silly to compare Byrd and Duke in the first place, but if you think they are "in the same category" then I don't really expect you to understand that.


From the all knowing Wikipedia:

In the early 1940s, Byrd recruited 150 of his friends and associates to create a new chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in Sophia, West Virginia.[12][13]

According to Byrd, a Klan official told him, "You have a talent for leadership, Bob ... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation." Byrd later recalled, "Suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did."[13] Byrd became a recruiter and leader of his chapter.[13] When it came time to elect the top officer (Exalted Cyclops) in the local Klan unit, Byrd won unanimously.[13]

In December 1944, Byrd wrote to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore G. Bilbo:

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

?Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944[13][20]
In 1946, Byrd wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard stating, "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."[21] However, when running for the United States House of Representatives in 1952, he announced "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." He said he had joined the Klan because he felt it offered excitement and was anti-communist.[13]

In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also warned, "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[22] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision a jejune and immature outlook seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[23] Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."[13]


gondicar - 3/1/2016 at 05:15 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:

There is a full court press to help push Rubio past Trump by the establishment with the complicit media. In 72 hours Trump has been labeled a racist, fascist, and a Nazi all in the mainstream press.

Inexperienced Rubio is the establishments last hope .



Trump has been labeled those things often over the last 72 weeks, not just hours. Although I'm sure the lies he's been telling this week about not knowing who David Duke is has ratcheted that up a bit...

Trump in 1991 (talking about Duke's failed gubanatorial bid and possible white house run):
Larry King: "If he runs and Pat Buchanan runs [for president in 1992], might you see a really divided vote?"

Trump: "Well, I think if they run, or even if David Duke I mean, George Bush was very, very strong against David Duke. I think if he had it to do again, he might not have gotten involved in that campaign because I think David Duke now, if he runs, takes away almost exclusively Bush votes and then a guy like Cuomo runs I think Cuomo can win the election."

King: "But Bush morally had to come out against him."

Trump: "I think Bush had to come out against him. I think Bush if David Duke runs, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes. Whether that be good or bad, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes. Pat Buchanan who really has many of the same theories, except its in a better package Pat Buchanan is going to take a lot of votes away from George Bush. So if you have these two guys running, or even one of them running, I think George Bush could be in big trouble."

Trump in 2000:
"Well, youve got David Duke just joined a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party. Buchanans a disaster as weve, you know, covered. Jesses a terrific guy who just left the party. And he, you know, its unfortunate, but he just left the party. Hes going to be doing his Independence Party from Minnesota."

"The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This not company I wish to keep."

Trump 2 days ago:
"Well, just so you understand, I dont know anything about David Duke. OK? I dont know anything about what youre even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I dont know."
________________________________________________________________________

You conveniently did not mention that Donald Trump clearly and succinctly disavowed David Duke in a televised press conference from Ft. Worth last Friday.

Not surprisingly we dont hear from the left anyone calling for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to publically reject Black Lives Matter, the militant organization openly calling for the killing of police officers.

Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have pandered to Black Lives Matter whereas Donald Trump openly rejects The Klan.

You seem all upset about "white supremacists", who Donald Trump has disavowed and "black militants", supported by Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, are fine with you.


gondicar - 3/1/2016 at 05:17 PM

quote:
quote:
Of course it is silly to compare Byrd and Duke in the first place, but if you think they are "in the same category" then I don't really expect you to understand that.


From the all knowing Wikipedia:

In the early 1940s, Byrd recruited 150 of his friends and associates to create a new chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in Sophia, West Virginia.[12][13]

According to Byrd, a Klan official told him, "You have a talent for leadership, Bob ... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation." Byrd later recalled, "Suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did."[13] Byrd became a recruiter and leader of his chapter.[13] When it came time to elect the top officer (Exalted Cyclops) in the local Klan unit, Byrd won unanimously.[13]

In December 1944, Byrd wrote to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore G. Bilbo:

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

?Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944[13][20]
In 1946, Byrd wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard stating, "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."[21] However, when running for the United States House of Representatives in 1952, he announced "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." He said he had joined the Klan because he felt it offered excitement and was anti-communist.[13]

In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also warned, "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[22] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision a jejune and immature outlook seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[23] Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."[13]


Thanks. Like I said, very silly to compare Byrd to Duke as being "in the same category."


heineken515 - 3/1/2016 at 05:21 PM

quote:

Thanks. Like I said, very silly to compare Byrd to Duke as being "in the same category."


Right, being the exhalted cyclops leader of a local unit back when they actually killed blacks vs being the leader of the dumb group today, where it is largely ignored is totally pointless and not in the same category.


Bhawk - 3/1/2016 at 05:24 PM

quote:
quote:

Thanks. Like I said, very silly to compare Byrd to Duke as being "in the same category."


Right, being the exhalted cyclops leader of a local unit back when they actually killed blacks vs being the leader of the dumb group today, where it is largely ignored is totally pointless and not in the same category.


It seems to be important to some folks...

quote:
"We cannot be a party that nominates someone who refuses to condemn white supremacists and the Ku Klux Klan. Not only is that wrong, it makes him unelectable." -Marco Rubio, 2/29/16


heineken515 - 3/1/2016 at 05:28 PM

On Tuesday morning, Trump tried to be slightly more forceful in his comments on Duke. In a phone interview on ABCs Good Morning America, he was asked whether he categorically rejects the support of all white supremacists. Of course I am, he responded. Of course I am.


gondicar - 3/1/2016 at 05:40 PM

quote:
quote:

Thanks. Like I said, very silly to compare Byrd to Duke as being "in the same category."


Right, being the exhalted cyclops leader of a local unit back when they actually killed blacks vs being the leader of the dumb group today, where it is largely ignored is totally pointless and not in the same category.

You need to do some more reading. Byrd and Duke were/are not in the same category at all. It is a silly comparison.

[Edited on 3/1/2016 by gondicar]


gondicar - 3/1/2016 at 05:42 PM

quote:
On Tuesday morning, Trump tried to be slightly more forceful in his comments on Duke. In a phone interview on ABCs Good Morning America, he was asked whether he categorically rejects the support of all white supremacists. Of course I am, he responded. Of course I am.

Just like the governor of Maine Paul LePage, Trump intentionally says outrageous things on the stump to appeal to his base, then tries to walk it back later blaming it all on "the media." I've seen it over and over again (and over and over and over...) from LePage for the last 6 years, and Trump follows the same playbook.



[Edited on 3/1/2016 by gondicar]


Muleman1994 - 3/1/2016 at 06:01 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:

There is a full court press to help push Rubio past Trump by the establishment with the complicit media. In 72 hours Trump has been labeled a racist, fascist, and a Nazi all in the mainstream press.

Inexperienced Rubio is the establishments last hope .



Trump has been labeled those things often over the last 72 weeks, not just hours. Although I'm sure the lies he's been telling this week about not knowing who David Duke is has ratcheted that up a bit...

Trump in 1991 (talking about Duke's failed gubanatorial bid and possible white house run):
Larry King: "If he runs and Pat Buchanan runs [for president in 1992], might you see a really divided vote?"

Trump: "Well, I think if they run, or even if David Duke I mean, George Bush was very, very strong against David Duke. I think if he had it to do again, he might not have gotten involved in that campaign because I think David Duke now, if he runs, takes away almost exclusively Bush votes and then a guy like Cuomo runs I think Cuomo can win the election."

King: "But Bush morally had to come out against him."

Trump: "I think Bush had to come out against him. I think Bush if David Duke runs, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes. Whether that be good or bad, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes. Pat Buchanan who really has many of the same theories, except its in a better package Pat Buchanan is going to take a lot of votes away from George Bush. So if you have these two guys running, or even one of them running, I think George Bush could be in big trouble."

Trump in 2000:
"Well, youve got David Duke just joined a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party. Buchanans a disaster as weve, you know, covered. Jesses a terrific guy who just left the party. And he, you know, its unfortunate, but he just left the party. Hes going to be doing his Independence Party from Minnesota."

"The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This not company I wish to keep."

Trump 2 days ago:
"Well, just so you understand, I dont know anything about David Duke. OK? I dont know anything about what youre even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I dont know."
________________________________________________________________________

You conveniently did not mention that Donald Trump clearly and succinctly disavowed David Duke in a televised press conference from Ft. Worth last Friday.

Not surprisingly we dont hear from the left anyone calling for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to publically reject Black Lives Matter, the militant organization openly calling for the killing of police officers.

Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have pandered to Black Lives Matter whereas Donald Trump openly rejects The Klan.

You seem all upset about "white supremacists", who Donald Trump has disavowed and "black militants", supported by Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, are fine with you.



________________________________________________________________________

Okay, I get it. You support the killing of police officers.

Exactly what criteria do you use when picking which hate group to reject and which you support?


BillyBlastoff - 3/1/2016 at 06:20 PM

quote:
Whether you believe it or not, Trump stated he had a malfunctioning ear piece and had trouble hearing.

Trump has allowed access to himself by the media and if Nate Silver would do the statistics, I would not be surprised if Trump media coverage ( by his own choice, btw) is at a 100:1 ratio or words spoken to the press would be 10,000 :1 ratio as compared to Hillary or Bernie.

Now the focus is on a few sentences about a guy he denounced in 2000 and again denounced shortly after the interview.

Like I said , its a full court press to bring him down. I have never seen anything like this.


You really think Trump's media coverage is 1000:1 more than their coverage of Hillary? Really?

Benghazi? Emails? White Water? How many scandals has Hillary been accused of? How many have been true?

As far as I can tell millions of dollars have spent to bring her down and nothing has stuck.


gondicar - 3/1/2016 at 08:29 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:

There is a full court press to help push Rubio past Trump by the establishment with the complicit media. In 72 hours Trump has been labeled a racist, fascist, and a Nazi all in the mainstream press.

Inexperienced Rubio is the establishments last hope .



Trump has been labeled those things often over the last 72 weeks, not just hours. Although I'm sure the lies he's been telling this week about not knowing who David Duke is has ratcheted that up a bit...

Trump in 1991 (talking about Duke's failed gubanatorial bid and possible white house run):
Larry King: "If he runs and Pat Buchanan runs [for president in 1992], might you see a really divided vote?"

Trump: "Well, I think if they run, or even if David Duke I mean, George Bush was very, very strong against David Duke. I think if he had it to do again, he might not have gotten involved in that campaign because I think David Duke now, if he runs, takes away almost exclusively Bush votes and then a guy like Cuomo runs I think Cuomo can win the election."

King: "But Bush morally had to come out against him."

Trump: "I think Bush had to come out against him. I think Bush if David Duke runs, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes. Whether that be good or bad, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes. Pat Buchanan who really has many of the same theories, except its in a better package Pat Buchanan is going to take a lot of votes away from George Bush. So if you have these two guys running, or even one of them running, I think George Bush could be in big trouble."

Trump in 2000:
"Well, youve got David Duke just joined a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party. Buchanans a disaster as weve, you know, covered. Jesses a terrific guy who just left the party. And he, you know, its unfortunate, but he just left the party. Hes going to be doing his Independence Party from Minnesota."

"The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This not company I wish to keep."

Trump 2 days ago:
"Well, just so you understand, I dont know anything about David Duke. OK? I dont know anything about what youre even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I dont know."
________________________________________________________________________

You conveniently did not mention that Donald Trump clearly and succinctly disavowed David Duke in a televised press conference from Ft. Worth last Friday.

Not surprisingly we dont hear from the left anyone calling for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to publically reject Black Lives Matter, the militant organization openly calling for the killing of police officers.

Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have pandered to Black Lives Matter whereas Donald Trump openly rejects The Klan.

You seem all upset about "white supremacists", who Donald Trump has disavowed and "black militants", supported by Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, are fine with you.



________________________________________________________________________

Okay, I get it. You support the killing of police officers.

Exactly what criteria do you use when picking which hate group to reject and which you support?

Actually no, you don't get it. At all.


BoytonBrother - 3/1/2016 at 09:19 PM

quote:
Have you seen the photo of Hillary kissing Robert Byrd. This is not in the news at all but wasn't he in the same category as Duke . The media is sure focusing on one and not the other.


So then you are admitting that you oppose her relationship with Byrd because of his racist past? I do too. She should've known better, and because of these flubs among the others, she will not get my vote. Will you acknowledge the same about Trump's flubs and cast your vote elsewhere? Probably not. Why make excuses for either?


MartinD28 - 3/1/2016 at 10:09 PM

quote:
I'll admit that after hearing Hillary debate, she is incredibly disappointing. Not a sincere word yet if you ask me. Just sounds phony 100% of the time, which only makes her sound like she is hiding something. I want Bernie, but I don't see how he has any chance at all, so I'm hoping Rubio gets it.

[Edited on 3/1/2016 by BoytonBrother]


You've pretty much labeled most politicians in your first three sentences. Bernie & possibly Kasich to a smaller degree may be exceptions. Carson not worth mentioning because he's not a politician and adds zero to the discussion and is a non factor. The rest are pretty much in the same boat of lack of sincerity. We pick the best poison.

BB, I don't how you can make the leap from Bernie to Rubio. Who they are, and what they stand for are miles apart.


2112 - 3/1/2016 at 10:32 PM

Against Donald Trump: Why Evangelicals Must Not Support Trump -

http://mereorthodoxy.com/against-donald-trump-evangelicals/#sthash.xqA4xC1W .dpuf

The rise of Donald Trump among some evangelicals is an understandable, even if unsettling phenomenon. The alienation and despair that he has both fostered and exploited is a pervasive feature of some corners of American life. But no one is more susceptible to such hopelessness about our political class than working-class, rural, white evangelicals, who have been tutored more by the grievance and resentment theater of both conservative and evangelical talk radio than by the good news of the Gospel. As Ben Domenech has astutely explained, having lost every culture war such evangelicals are now fighting on the only terrain they have left: political correctness. And Donald Trump is their gift to the world.

I have relatively deep roots in the conservative evangelical world. In 2007, Justin Taylor and Joe Carter let me join with them in endorsing Mike Huckabee. (I have since grown to regret this.) Unlike many of my more moderate peers, I have publicly defended traditional marriage. I have spoken at the Values Voter Summit. When progressive Christian Rachel Held Evans wanted to find a Christian to explain why they are drawn to political conservatism, she kindly invited me. I have written a cover story and a number of other pieces for Christianity Today. I am unswervingly pro-life and will unflinchingly describe the abortion regime as an American genocide. I think Values and Capitalism is among the best programs in the conservative world.

I have also never written about immigration, but my own views are somewhere between Rubio and Cruz. (This must be said, as it has become a litmus test for evangelical conservatives in this campaign.) I am skeptical of the relaxed immigration policies that many countries in Europe have practiced, but also recognize that America isnt Europe and that we may be able to sustain and assimilate higher percentages of immigrants than countries with tiny land-masses. Ross Douthats ten theses on immigration seem enormously sensible to me. Like many Americans, I think blanket amnesty is a bad ideaand I see no way to deport 12 million people. I have friends and neighbors who are both members of the white underclass and are undocumented immigrants, and see regularly firsthand the challenges both sets face in trying to sustain their way of life.

Born of the tribe of Dobson and inducted into the party of Reagan on the eighth day, I have supported every Republican presidential candidate in my lifetime. And never before have I been more ready to dissolve that union.

If Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, I will not hesitate in abstaining or voting for a third party in November. And neither should you.



In January, I compared Donald Trump to Sir John Falstaff, whose debauched and degenerate jollity has long intoxicated audiences with the strange brew of repulsion and mirth. Falstaff is larger than life itself: He somehow stands outside morality, even as he stands outside the political order. But Henry, having deliberately shrouded his character in the stench of vice through his close friendship with Falstaff, knows that the friendship cannot endure in the same way when he assumes the throne: I will banish thee, he promises Falstaff in the midst of their revelry. They both know it must be true: The legitimacy of Henrys rule would be imperiled by his close friendship with the lecher.

Trump is a not simply a charlatan, a huckster, a con-man, though he is all of that. He is also shameless. The more outlandish he is, the more he is rewarded with the only currency he cares about: attention. He has none of the checks or balances that make the rest of us mortals weak and irrelevant. He is T.S. Eliots Hollow Man come to life: He blows wherever the loves of money, fame, and his indulgent fantasies of being a winner will take him. As Joe Carter said recently, his penchants for insults betrays an incredibly insecure mentality, the sort that breeds a harsh authoritarianism at the first whiff of power. Nothing else will matter except maintaining the delusion that Trump is a Winner, Baby: the common good be damned.

Such shamelessness is his greatest asset: It is also one of our political orders most deadly foes. As Eliot Cohen recently argued, Trumps debased approach to political life signals a larger moral and cultural collapse. While political correctness may slowly suffocate meaningful debate and dissent, the festering of an environment where outlandish and disgusting rhetoric are rewarded with a partys nomination will only embolden imitators. (Twitter is full of them, and they are terrible.) And we will be the worse for it: The shame that prompts our politicians to try to wiggle out of being called a liar is what, in some instances, will actually prevent them from lying.

The lack of trust between the people and our government is a pernicious social disease that has been growing for a long time. But Trump is not so much a cure for our malaise as a more potent dose of the same venom. A political environment in which the truth is openly mocked, spit upon, and dragged through the streets before the cheering crowds places itself in serious jeopardy, as it reduces political relationships to who wields the instruments of power. If Trump, God and heaven forbid it, were actually to win the office, he would have his reward while the rest of us face la guillotine.

While evangelicals have gravitated to Trump precisely because of his repudiation of the political correctness of our day, the brutal irony is that he is its final triumph, its consummation and perfection, its heroic championeven down to his followers technique of shaming and silencing dissenters on Twitter. The reduction of politics to power and the assertion that argument is a cover for bigotry finds its completion in the devil-may-care spectacle that is the Trump campaign. He has persuaded even those who claim for themselves the name of the Gospel that nothing matters besides being told the warm and comforting truth that We Can Be Winners, that the truth is dispensable provided our needs are satisfactorily met. The irrelevancy of truth for the sake of power-relations in Trumps campaign has transposed political correctness into a new, contrarian key: Trump has not left it behind so much as co-opted it for his endsat least until its purpose is served.

And those who support Trump will be most likely to lose out if he eventually wins. So it has often been for those who have bought into his lies. From Trumps casinos to Trump University, like the prosperity preachers he emulates Trump has preyed upon the very people he claims to love and support. And why would a President Trump be any different? We have been given no reason why the Newly Converted Conservative Trump will be any better for America than the liberal Hillary Clinton. And no reason can be given because none exists outside of Trumps most solemn word, a word that his history suggests is as valuable as the degrees from his University. For those drawn to Trumps policies, on what reasonable basis would you expect him to not sell you out? Because the fearsome power of the Republican Establishment will hold him to account? The same Republican establishment that is now bending to kiss the ring?

T.S. Eliot was not wrong about much, but he was about this: The world may end, but it will not be with a whimper, except from the conservative Republicans who have decided Trump is their only hope for the relevance and influence they crave.



There is no conservative argument for Trump. Conservatives once held that virtue and character are essential requirements for a just society, and that a stable marriage and family is among the best way to nurture those virtues. Those virtues, we contended, were essential for ensuring that the market not only operated efficiently, but stayed within its appropriate boundaries. The conservative movement once believed that religion was central to our social fabric, that not everyone had to be religious but that it needed to be afforded due respect and even reverence. Turning religion into a political prop would only cheapen it, and eventually corrode it. The political virtues that conservatives once cared abouttemperance and restraintare now treated (by conservatives) as the stuff of compromisers and weaklings: Damn your concern for principles and prudence: We shall have our riots in the streets!

My depiction of conservatism is, admittedly, both nostalgic and not policy-specific. But it gestures at a set of intuitions which have helped me maintain my ties to a party that I have frequently found myself in disagreement with. I have always been happy to be an idealist: Chesterton taught me that it is the only path toward reform. Still, if the Republican party has become so detached from the conservatism that I depicted that it is willing to allow Trump to bear its mantle, it deserves the violent death that it currently faces.

It would be easy to look upon Trump and see him as an outlier in American life. But the Trumpian disregard for the truth and virtue is a cancer that has beset us all: Trump is a candidate for our time, a fitting judgment upon us who magnifies our sins and our vices. He may be a caricature; but he is a parody of us, a morality tale whose meaning we should heed.

But there is a difference between acknowledging the degraded political character of our age and joining with the Visigoths while they tear down the Roman monuments. That the Babylonians were Gods instrument for judgment does not mean the Israelites should have cleaned their swords. If the gods have released the Kraken upon us, shall we join him for tea and crumpets?

The Republican Party Establishmentmay they rest in peacehas been leaning toward doing just that. Having failed to even try to stop him, they will now tell us that we are obligated to support him in November. At the moment when Falstaff must be banished, Chris Christie pledged his fealtyand was rewarded most handsomely for it. Hugh Hewitt has begun banging the unity drum. I have long admired him, though he has oft been tempted to prioritize the party over principle.

More will unquestionably come, with cries of The Court, The Court, The Court! So the wholesale repudiation of conservative principles by the party pledged to defend them will proceed, washed down by the smooth pragmatic consequentialism that has placed its principles on the altar of urgency. That the party of Lincoln would demand that we support Donald Trump suggests there is no one who might rise the ranks to whom such individuals would say no. One might think that such unprincipled weakness is partly what has undermined our countrys respect for the party and given us.Donald Trump. The party leadership has not learned its lesson, but they will have their reward in full: a weekend stay at Mar-a-Lago, which should keep them warm and cozy in their infamy.

I do not despair at the prospects of President Trump: If that is the judgment upon us, then I will meet it with as much good cheer and confidence as I can muster. What tempts me to despair is the number of otherwise sensible people who will capitulate to the shameless huckster to preserve the shreds of their power. Yes, the Supreme Court is important. But if the Republic is in such dire shape that we have to vote for a chronic liar who has knows how to distance himself just enough from the racist underbelly of American life to hold it together, then we should just honestly acknowledge that she is already mortally wounded. This election is about saving the country, Hewitt cries, as though all it will take is three Supreme Court justices and a much stronger navy. If the country is imperiled, it is so because of the rot withinthe rot that Trumps overtly race-baiting politics has brought to the surface, and which the Vichy Republicans are currently planning to make terms with.

Besides, Trumps promises to appoint conservative justices are worth what, exactly? More or less than the Trump University degree? That the next President may appoint three Supreme Court justices is not an argument for voting for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. Given Trumps penchant for telling people what they want to hear for the sake of his own advancement, we need some argument independent of his own words that he will suddenly become trustworthy when he is in office. The entire history of his character bears witness against it.

But I am not convinced it has come to that, because I think there are enough decent, clear-headed men and women left in this country that Donald Trump will never be President. Would that there were more of them within the Partys leadership.

Trump is the candidate Republicans deserve. But I will not be complicit in their folly. With Erick Erickson, I will never vote for Donald J. Trump. He has neither the character nor the principles to commend him to the office. That this even has to be said is indictment of the world enough. It is an age of high folly when banally obvious truths have to be uttered by ordinary men and women.

The right response now to Donald Trump by any conservative is Ericksons and Ben Sasses: We shall fight on Super Tuesday, we shall fight on the plains of Ohio, we shall fight in Florida, we shall fight with the cheer of knowing we are in the right, we shall fight on the floor of the convention, we shall never join with him. The Republican party may die, but conservatism and its principles will go on and be renewed without it. #NeverTrump. Not now, not ever.

But to that I would add that I may never support a candidate who endorses him, either. Offering support to Trump is such a gross error in judgment that I will be highly skeptical of any politician who lends their aid to place him in the White House. The party simply isnt worth it. It never was, and as long as it continues to embrace the myth that the Party Matters Above All, it never will be. The only meaningful way to defeat Trumpism permanently is to offer a better politics, a politics rooted in integrity and character and concern for our neighbor, a politics that takes seriously the concerns of Trumps followers without capitulating to their leader. Such a politics can win the respect of a majority of the country only if it breaks with Trump himself, and ignores the browbeating about the Court that the Vichy Republicans (like Hewitt) will offer until November 11th.

For evangelicals, the decision should be easy. Sadly, for many who are already supporting Trump, it is not. We have Bible verses clearly indicting Trumps behavior, and in the strongest possible terms. I mean, look at the list from Proverbs about what the Lord hates: haughty eyes, a lying tongue a false witness that pours out lies Accepting Trump because he announces that we can be warm and filled completely divorces our political commitments from our interest in the Gospel. This is the time to recognize what you have wrought, and repent: The hour draws nigh, but it is not too late. Shamelessness is not courage. Defeating political correctness through wickedness is not a victory for the truth. The enemy of our enemy is not always our friend. If we feed the beast, he will someday grow strong enough to turn on us. And that day will come: Trumps history of being blown by every wind and wave of sentiment virtually guarantees it.

For those evangelicals who are seized by despair at our political order and interested in burning it to the ground, consider instead voting for someone with the firmness of principles and character that will guarantee that when he arrives, he will not lose sight of his mission. C.S. Lewis once said he would rather play cards with an atheist who never cheated over a Christian who didnt care. In the same way, disaffected evangelicals should prefer someone with a moral center over the hollow core of a B-grade celebrity. In other words, lend your support to Bernie Sanders: Youll have as much of a chance of overturning our political order, having your interests represented, and passing pro-life policies as you will with Donald Trump. And he at least has the advantage of being a decent human being.

There is no world in which I would vote for Bernie Sanders. But I would consider it before I would ever consider voting for Donald Trump. And Republicans who expect us to fall in line come November should know that among evangelicals who have voted with them in the past, I am not alone.


pops42 - 3/1/2016 at 10:44 PM

trump is going to turn the republican party against itself, and implode it. its going to be fun to watch.


BoytonBrother - 3/2/2016 at 12:45 AM

Billy, I was high when I wrote that so let me clarify. I want Bernie to win it all - he represents what I stand for. I hope he gets the nod but I see Hillary getting it. I will certainly vote for Hillary if Trump is the nom, but if it comes to Rubio and Hillary, I'd have to go with Rubio, as of now. Depends on the future debates I guess. I need to see Hillary get much more passionate.


OriginalGoober - 3/2/2016 at 02:23 AM

Bernie socialist label has killed his chances in the south


MartinD28 - 3/2/2016 at 02:58 AM

As we speak, watching Trump give his winner's speech with his lacky, the esteemed Governor of NJ standing behind him on the podium. Just a few weeks ago Christie (bully #1) was trash talking Trump (bully #2). Now Governor "time for some traffic" is carrying the water for Trump.

VP offer down the road for CC? Just what we need - a tag team of those two.

Trump just reinforced that Mexico will pay for the wall. Yep...bound to happen.


gondicar - 3/2/2016 at 03:00 PM


heineken515 - 3/2/2016 at 03:34 PM

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/benghazi-heroes-support-trump/


BillyBlastoff - 3/2/2016 at 04:05 PM

quote:
Billy, I was high...


Is what all of America will say one week into a Trump Presidency.


nebish - 3/2/2016 at 04:34 PM

Really enjoyed Super Tuesday last night. This is a really fun election! We had a contest of picking 1st-3rd for the Republicans and 1-2 for Dems in every state with a correct 1st pick = 3 pts, 2nd = 2 pts, 3rd = 1 and for any combination of the right names 1-3 you got an extra 1 pt. I came in first with 115 pts over my wife who had 90 something and my stepson was last with 80 pts. Now hopefully the delegates respect my victory at the convention

Doesn't anyone think that Trump's answer of "I don't know about David Duke" or "what groups, who are they", doesn't it seem like he was saying something like I am not aware of anything they have said about me or for my candidacy.

There are lots of things he could've or should've said to put some more distance between himself and Duke and groups like that, so in that respect he left himself open for criticism.

I've heard people say that he did what he did to not alienate any potential voters who share the view of a person like Duke or white supremecy group. That I find very very hard to believe. Right off the bat the guy thinks he is going to beat every candidate anyway and tells us all the time how big his leads are in the polls. I don't think he cared about trying to not offend that small part of who may be voting for him because really, when has he ever cared about offending people? Now all of a sudden he is tip toeing around to get those kind of people to vote for him? I don't buy it.

[Edited on 3/2/2016 by nebish]


nebish - 3/2/2016 at 04:44 PM

quote:
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/benghazi-heroes-support-trump/


quote:
"We get harassed by every single freaking government that we deal with," he said. "A lot of guys are fed up with it. And our government doesnt do anything to back us up."


That bothered me. I am worried about the moral of our military.

I only have one friend who was deployed and did 2 tours in Iraq. My opinion is largely through what he tells me, but people he has stayed in touch with since being out of the Army feel the same way, they see the way our government has been handling military involvement in foreign conflicts as a big pile of **** (both Bush and Obama).

I found interviews with Tulsi Gabbard since leaving the DNC pretty informative on her views of how the government should or shouldn't use our military. It reaches a breaking point at some level, which we've already gone past probably.


Muleman1994 - 3/2/2016 at 05:09 PM

Bernie Sanders is done:

Hillary Clinton 1034
Bernie Sanders 408
Martin O'Malley 0

2383 needed to win nomination 4765 available



BillyBlastoff - 3/2/2016 at 05:41 PM

quote:
I only have one friend who was deployed and did 2 tours in Iraq. My opinion is largely through what he tells me, but people he has stayed in touch with since being out of the Army feel the same way, they see the way our government has been handling military involvement in foreign conflicts as a big pile of **** (both Bush and Obama).


My neighbor is a high ranking Commander in the Air Force. He is of the opinion that we need a Commander in Chief who will define our end game in Afghanistan. You can't win a war if you don't know what you are fighting for.


Muleman1994 - 3/2/2016 at 06:33 PM

quote:
quote:
I only have one friend who was deployed and did 2 tours in Iraq. My opinion is largely through what he tells me, but people he has stayed in touch with since being out of the Army feel the same way, they see the way our government has been handling military involvement in foreign conflicts as a big pile of **** (both Bush and Obama).


My neighbor is a high ranking Commander in the Air Force. He is of the opinion that we need a Commander in Chief who will define our end game in Afghanistan. You can't win a war if you don't know what you are fighting for.

________________________________________________________________________

Tell your neighbor to tell his commander in chief.


gondicar - 3/2/2016 at 07:46 PM


rongabbard - 3/2/2016 at 09:29 PM

" I know nothing"...
As far as Tulsi goes, who could play second fiddle to Wasserman-Schultz ? good god


Muleman1994 - 3/2/2016 at 09:33 PM

quote:
" I know nothing"...
As far as Tulsi goes, who could play second fiddle to Wasserman-Schultz ? good god

__________________________________________________________________________

Gloria Steinem or Whoopi Goldberg


gondicar - 3/3/2016 at 01:21 AM

Ha ha ha!!

Searches for how can I move to Canada on Google have spiked +350% in the past hours #SuperTuesday, tweeted Googles search engine data editor Simon Rogers.

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/google-searches-for-move-to-canada-spike-on-super -tuesday/64536954


Muleman1994 - 3/3/2016 at 06:25 PM

quote:
Ha ha ha!!

Searches for how can I move to Canada on Google have spiked +350% in the past hours #SuperTuesday, tweeted Googles search engine data editor Simon Rogers.

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/google-searches-for-move-to-canada-spike-on-super -tuesday/64536954

__________________________________________________________________________

Every presidential election cycle the Hollywood and far-left political mouthpieces say the same crap.
None of them ever do.

This year Whoopi Goldberg leads the list of liberals claiming they will "leave the country if so and so gets elected."



gondicar - 3/3/2016 at 06:26 PM

I've never seen either party trying to hard to torpedo their POTUS frontrunner, especially this far into primary season, like the GOP is trying to do to Trump. Will be very interesting to see if they all flip as throroughly and completely as Chris Christie has if Trump does secure the nomination...


Mitt Romney thoroughly blasts Donald Trump as phony, fraud
Hes playing the American public for suckers, Romney said.

Mitt Romney delivered the most comprehensive denunciation of Donald Trump to date on Thursday, thoroughly rejecting the billionaires temperament, his proposed policies, and his ability to tell the truth.

Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud, Romney said at the University of Utah. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. Hes playing the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.

Coming from the former Republican nominee, Thursdays speech marked the most notable anti-Trump statements from any GOP leader not running for president.

Romney warned that Trumps plan would send the economy into a prolonged recession, raise the deficit and debt, and start a trade war that would hurt consumers. He said Trump was very very not smart on foreign policy and doubted his claims of business success.

But wait, you say, wait wait wait, isnt he a huge business success? Doesnt he know what hes talking about? No he isnt. And no he doesnt, Romney said. A business genius he is not.

He detailed a series of failed companies started and shuttered by the billionaire, including Trump Airlines, Trump University, Trump Magazine, Trump Vodka, Trump Steaks, and Trump Mortgage.

In addition, he contrasted Trumps temperament with Americas history of men of character.

Dishonesty is Trumps hallmark, Romney said, noting his widely discredited claim that he had seen thousands of Muslims celebrating on 9/11. His is not the temperament of a stable, thoughtful leader. His imagination must not be married to real power.

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, has become more vocal in his criticisms of Trump in recent weeks. He has accused Trump of hiding a bombshell in his tax returns and rejected his disgusting response to receiving a former Ku Klux Klan leaders support. He repeated those criticisms in his remarks Thursday.

Despite his forceful anti-Trump rhetoric, Romney declined to endorse another candidate. He said he would vote for the contender in each state who would best keep Trump from acquiring enough delegates to secure the nomination.

Romneys speech included a wide vocabulary, using words like improvident, bombast, and enmity. The word choice was a marked contrast from Trumps emphasis on simple, easy-to-understand language.

Finally, Romney challenged listeners to follow how Trump responds to Romneys criticisms.

Will he talk about our policy differences or will he attack me with every imaginable low road insult? he asked.

Earlier on Thursday, Trump laid into Romneywho doesnt know how to winin a series of tweets and by calling into morning news programs.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/03/03/mitt-romney-set-put-trump-bl ast-phony-fraud/35jZ1wFH2l5xVeHoXRpFmJ/story.html

[Edited on 3/3/2016 by gondicar]


BillyBlastoff - 3/3/2016 at 06:56 PM

Why did Christie flip so thoroughly and so quickly? Speculation abound...




gondicar - 3/3/2016 at 09:10 PM

10 colorful Donald Trump insults from Mitt Romney's speech...


On Trump's business record:

"But you say, 'Wait wait wait,' isn't he a huge business success? Doesn't he know what he's talking about? No he isn't. And know he doesn't. His bankruptcies have crushed small businesses and the men and women who worked for them. He inherited his business, he didn't create it. And what ever happened to Trump Airlines? How about Trump University? And then there's Trump Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks and Trump Mortgage. A business genius he is not."


On Trump's foreign policy credentials:

"Donald Trump tells us that he is very, very smart. I'm afraid that when it comes to foreign policy he is very, very not smart."


On whether Trump has the temperament of a president:

"This is an individual who mocked a disabled reporter, who attributed a reporter's questions to her menstrual cycle, who mocked a brilliant rival who happened to be a woman due to her appearance, who bragged about his marital affairs, and who laces his public speeches with vulgarity."


On how Trump recalls spending the Vietnam War years:

"There is dark irony in his boasts of his sexual exploits during the Vietnam War while at the same time John McCain, whom he has mocked, was imprisoned and tortured."


On Trump's "hallmark" quality:

"Dishonesty is Trump's hallmark: He claimed that he had spoken clearly and boldly against going into Iraq. Wrong. He spoke in favor of invading Iraq. He said he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating 9/11. Wrong. He saw no such thing. He imagined it. He's not of the temperament of the kind of stable, thoughtful person we need as leader. His imagination must not be married to real power."


On his very specific plan to defeat Trump in the primary:

"Given the current delegate selection process, that means that I'd vote for Marco Rubio in Florida, for John Kasich in Ohio, and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state."


On Trump's less appealing "personal qualities":

"Think of Donald Trump's personal qualities, the bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third grade theatrics. We have long referred to him as 'The Donald.' He is the only person in the entire country to whom we have added an article before his name. And it wasn't because he had attributes we admired."


On what Romney thinks is the most ridiculous idea of the campaign season so far:

"What he said on '60 Minutes' about Syria and ISIS has to go down as the most ridiculous and dangerous idea of the campaign season: Let ISIS take out Assad, he said, and then we can pick up the remnants. Think about that: Let the most dangerous terror organization the world has ever known take over a country? This is recklessness in the extreme."


On what would happen if Trump released his tax returns and a tape of his off-the-record conversation with The New York Times:

"I predict that there are more bombshells in his tax returns. I predict that he doesn't give much if anything to the disabled and to our veterans. I predict that he told The New York Times that his immigration talk is just that: talk. ... If I'm right (that he won't release either), you will have all the proof you need to know that Donald Trump is, indeed, a phony."


On the value of a diploma from Trump University:

"Here's what I know. Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He's playing the members of the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat."


http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/mitt-romney-donald-trump-harsh-quote s

[Edited on 3/3/2016 by gondicar]


gondicar - 3/3/2016 at 09:29 PM


gondicar - 3/3/2016 at 09:31 PM

Donald J. Trump on Mitt Romney's candidacy: "He was begging for my endorsement. I could have said 'Mitt, drop to your knees,' he would have dropped to his knees."



http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/donald-trump-mitt-romney-would-have- dropped-to-his-knees-for-my-endorsement/index.html


BillyBlastoff - 3/3/2016 at 09:37 PM

Trump will make a real classy President. He will insure International respect.

What a clown.


gondicar - 3/3/2016 at 10:18 PM

Military could face Nuremberg-like trial following Trump's orders, says former SecDef and GOP Senator William Cohen

(CNN)Members of the military who followed a would-be President Donald Trump's order to kill terrorists' families could face a Nuremberg-like war crimes trial, a former U.S. defense secretary tells CNN.

There's "something called Nuremberg that we have to be concerned about," William Cohen told Christiane Amanpour, referring to the military tribunals held in the wake of World War II.

If "you have an order given by the commander in chief, which violates every sense of law and order, international law and order, that would make any of those who carried out that dictum as such to be a violation of the international criminal code."

"So I think we have to be very careful what we're saying here."

Cohen served as a Republican senator from Maine for nearly 20 years, and as defense secretary during the second term of Bill Clinton's presidency.

He was referring to comments by Trump made to Fox News, that "when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families."

Michael Hayden, former CIA director and a retired Air Force general, told HBO's Bill Maher on Friday that "the American armed forces would refuse to act" in response to such an order.

Cohen said it "contravenes everything the United States stands for in this world of disorder."

"We have been strong internationalists. We have been a player on the international scene to promote our ideals."

"That has been the driving dream of the United States, to say look what a free country can do that abides by the rule of law, that has a sense of respect for individuality, for diversity, and for freedom of speech. This is something that's quite dangerous."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/world/trump-william-cohen-amanpour


nebish - 3/3/2016 at 10:18 PM

Is Donald Trump a representation of what American society has become and is that one reason he is resonating so well with some of those voting for him? Full of themselves, spiteful, all about 'me', rude.... People complain how America has changed over the past several decades...is Trump just a product of that and is it any surprise that people are eating it up and asking for more?


pops42 - 3/3/2016 at 10:27 PM

quote:
Is Donald Trump a representation of what American society has become and is that one reason he is resonating so well with some of those voting for him? Full of themselves, spiteful, all about 'me', rude.... People complain how America has changed over the past several decades...is Trump just a product of that and is it any surprise that people are eating it up and asking for more?


That sums it up well.


gondicar - 3/4/2016 at 01:08 PM

quote:
Donald J. Trump on Mitt Romney's candidacy: "He was begging for my endorsement. I could have said 'Mitt, drop to your knees,' he would have dropped to his knees."



http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/donald-trump-mitt-romney-would-have- dropped-to-his-knees-for-my-endorsement/index.html


Saw the clip of him saying this last night, and he got more boos than anything in response. Nice job, Portland!


gondicar - 3/4/2016 at 02:06 PM

I'm sure some of you saw this...he actually defended the size of his unit during the debate last night. Very presidential. You stay classy, Donald.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/donald-trump-small-hands-marco-rubio /index.html


nebish - 3/4/2016 at 02:58 PM

quote:
quote:
Is Donald Trump a representation of what American society has become and is that one reason he is resonating so well with some of those voting for him? Full of themselves, spiteful, all about 'me', rude.... People complain how America has changed over the past several decades...is Trump just a product of that and is it any surprise that people are eating it up and asking for more?


That sums it up well.


We can add thin skinned and a knee jerk reaction to sue at every slight one gets in life. Trump is just the mirror image of the degradation we too often see and experience all around us. I guess we will soon likely find out what percentage of America that complextion actually is.


Bhawk - 3/4/2016 at 04:15 PM

I don't think it's all that deep.

American politics is now two hated rival sports fanbases.

It does not matter to the Red Team who the Red Team nominates. All they know is, they are not voting for the Blue Team.

It does not matter to the Blue Team who the Blue Team nominates. All they know is, they are not voting for the Red Team.

That's it. That's all. That's where we are.


heineken515 - 3/4/2016 at 04:17 PM

quote:
That's it. That's all. That's where we are.


I don't feel this is new or associated with Trump, do you ?


gondicar - 3/4/2016 at 04:44 PM

quote:
quote:
That's it. That's all. That's where we are.


I don't feel this is new or associated with Trump, do you ?

Perhaps. Although I've never heard of a front runner from either party that feels comfortable enough with his/her standing with the electorate to make blowjob jokes during a stump speech or penis jokes during a live debate, and both of these things happened yesterday.



[Edited on 3/4/2016 by gondicar]


heineken515 - 3/4/2016 at 04:45 PM

I'm definitely not sticking up for Trump for that dick reference, but in all fairness, he was responding to Rubio's remark about small hands.


gondicar - 3/4/2016 at 04:50 PM

quote:
I'm definitely not sticking up for Trump for that dick reference, but in all fairness, he was responding to Rubio's remark about small hands.

Ok so they were both being childish, how does that make it better/different? And FWIW, unless I missed it, it was not a remark Rubio made during the debate and I didn't even know (or care) that Rubio had even said anything about small hands to begin with until Trump brought it up.

(and sure sounds like you are sticking up for him despite the disclaimer)





[Edited on 3/4/2016 by gondicar]


2112 - 3/4/2016 at 04:59 PM

Why is it that for years we have been hearing from the right complaints about frivolous lawsuits and making it a major issue, yet they give a complete pass to Trump, who is the king of frivolous lawsuits?


BillyBlastoff - 3/4/2016 at 07:43 PM

It's a new Right. They don't vote on principle. They are driven by hate and anger. I believe this has all been fomented by hate radio and Republican obstructionism. The issues don't seem to matter. Trump hasn't offered a single substantive plan.


gondicar - 3/4/2016 at 07:56 PM

quote:
Military could face Nuremberg-like trial following Trump's orders, says former SecDef and GOP Senator William Cohen

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/world/trump-william-cohen-amanpour


Today Trump did a total about face on what he has been saying about how he would use torture and killing families of terrorists, less than 24 hours after reaffirming his support of such tactics during last nights debate.

Kinda makes me want to know even more about what is on those "off the record" NY Times tapes.

Donald Trump reverses position on torture, killing terrorists' families:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/04/politics/donald-trump-reverses-on-torture/ind ex.html


pops42 - 3/4/2016 at 08:02 PM

quote:
It's a new Right. They don't vote on principle. They are driven by hate and anger. I believe this has all been fomented by hate radio and Republican obstructionism. The issues don't seem to matter. Trump hasn't offered a single substantive plan.
THIS^ sums it up well.


MartinD28 - 3/4/2016 at 11:24 PM

Does anyone think of the term "statesman" & associate that with The Donald?

Guess Mount Rushmore may need to have an addition to add Trump.


gina - 3/4/2016 at 11:25 PM

quote:
I'm definitely not sticking up for Trump for that dick reference, but in all fairness, he was responding to Rubio's remark about small hands.


Yes he defended himself, Rubio wanted to embarrass him and he was not going to take that. He defended himself in a charming way. His initial response was to say that people have told him he has "beautiful hands". Then he was a little more to the point for those who might not have understood what the remark was really about. He has proven he can lead, answer things directly, and that he has a sense of humor too. He did not get angry at the accusation, but he was not going to let it go unanswered.

He doesn't need a speech writer, he has his own mind, and can make decisions and lead. He has the qualities to be a good commander in chief.


gina - 3/4/2016 at 11:38 PM

quote:
It's a new Right. They don't vote on principle. They are driven by hate and anger. I believe this has all been fomented by hate radio and Republican obstructionism. The issues don't seem to matter. Trump hasn't offered a single substantive plan.


He has many plans. He wants to deal with the trade problem with Mexico by taxing the companies when they want to ship air conditioners across our borders. He wants to discourage US companies moving their factories down there. They move the factories down there, use cheap labor, taking away American jobs. If the companies have to pay a tax to move their goods across the border, they might think it is cheaper to do business in America.

He doesn't want us to be involved in wars in other countries. He has been criticized for his stance on Syria/Isis, but he said if Isis wanted to take out Assad, we should have let them try to do that, Assad would have taken care of that problem, or Russia would have assisted Assad and they would not be a threat to Syria and other countries, but instead we have Jordan asking for our help, Turkey covertly working with Isis, Hezbollah in Lebanon being declared a terrorist organization which will outrage Iran and other Shiites, the Saudis demanding we do something to stop Isis before they get to their region. We are murdering Taliban in Afghanistan, while Isis gains a foothold there. And we still have to send troops to Libya.

How smart is our current foreign policy keeping us embroiled in the wars and affairs of all these other countries?

Trump will keep us out of these wars. He will shore up our borders, fix our infrastructure, IF and only IF another nation comes to our borders to eff with us, THEN he will fight a war. If you want to start the 9.11 rant, go to:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

I will not even start with all the anomalies, or coincidences. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt the steel, thermite was used, first responders saw it. People in the bldgs., first responders and others, felt the bombs going off in the bldgs. etc. etc.

We are fighting all these proxy wars to destabilize the Middle East. If you don't know about the master plan, originally called Operation Clean Break, Securing the Realm, find out. It is what the New World Order wants. If you don't know who the New World Order is comprised of, do some searching. The Illuminati run the world because of their wealth and positions in industry, the military, governments. Eventually they will embrace and hand everybody over to be ruled by the anti-Christ. it does not happen overnight. It happens slowly. The End Times war was foretold to all religions including the Muslims, Christians and Jews. Go to Ezekiel and Revelations and it is all there.

Some have said there will not be an election in 2016, one of more dramatic things will happen that prevent it from being held. I told you about the prophetess on the west coast. She foresaw many things, including Chicago and Washington DC being hit by Russia with nukes. We are in one of the most important times in the history of this country. Did you know that China bought the Chicago Stock Exchange. China. What does that say about the state of our economy?

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/05/investing/china-buys-chicago-stock-exchange /index.html

Terms of the Chicago acquisition were not released. Privately-held Casin Group was founded in 1997 and has investments in real estate, environmental protection, finance and other areas. The Chicago Stock Exchange is minority-owned by a group that includes Bank of America (BAC), E*Trade (ETFC), Goldman Sachs (GS) and JPMorgan Chase (JPM).

Remark: They say the exchange is a small stock exchange, are these small companies? Other countries will start buying up investments to prop up our economy, it's the beginning of what is to come, if we allow other countries to manipulate the financial system.

With regards to the republican candidates for President, we need someone who is nationalistic, Trump is. America first, all these other countries later. I think he will make America great, at least he will try.











[Edited on 3/4/2016 by gina]

[Edited on 3/4/2016 by gina]


jkeller - 3/5/2016 at 12:31 AM

quote:
will not even start with all the anomalies, or coincidences. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt the steel, thermite was used, first responders saw it. People in the bldgs., first responders and others, felt the bombs going off in the bldgs. etc. etc.




Whoever said the metal melted? It didn't it was simply hot enough to collapse under the weight of the building over it. And what has this got to do with Trump? You are odd.

BTW, Trump has never said what any of his plans were because everything he says is just rhetoric. But after reading the quote above, I can see that you are very gullible.


gondicar - 3/10/2016 at 02:21 PM

I'm sure we've all seen the way Trump and his minions handle dissent and the violence that has become typical, but this over the top bad. What I don't understand is why otherwise reasonable people think it is acceptable on any level? Can only imagine the howls if the same things were happening at Bernie or Hillary events...

Trump protester sucker-punched at rally amid cheers, videos appear to show
The videos appear to show an African American man wearing a white T-shirt leaving the rally, when out of nowhere a man in a cowboy hat who appears to be white punches the man in the face.

By Justin Wm. Moyer and Jenny StarrsThe Washington Post

Multiple videos appear to show a protester at a Donald Trump rally in North Carolina being sucker-punched by a Trump supporter.

The videos, which appeared on social media early Thursday, are shot from different perspectives, and appear to show an African American man with long hair wearing a white T-shirt leaving the Trump rally as the audience boos. He is being led out of the rally by men in uniforms that read Sheriffs Office. The protester may have extended a middle finger to the audience on his way out.

Then, out of nowhere, the man is punched in the face by a pony-tailed man, who appears to be white, in a cowboy hat, black vest and pink shirt as the crowd begins to cheer. The protester stumbles away, and then is detained by a number of the men in uniforms, who handcuff him while he is on the ground.

Chill, chill! an onlooker says. You dont gotta grab him like that!

Fayetteville is in Cumberland County, N.C., but an official from the Cumberland County Sheriffs Office, reached by The Washington Post, said officers from that jurisdiction were not the ones who detained the man. The Fayetteville Police Department also told The Post they did not detain anyone at the rally, held at the citys Crown Coliseum.

Social media posts identified the man who was punched by his Instagram and Twitter handles; messages to him were not immediately returned, nor were messages to those who shot the videos.

Trump rallies are getting a reputation for violence by Trump supporters against disruptive protesters. Police in Fayetteville had to form a line separating pro and anti-Trump groups outside the coliseum.

According to CBSNewYork, police are investigating at least two alleged assaults at a recent Kentucky rally. One involved a young African-American woman who was repeatedly shoved and called scum.

Trump himself has not been quick to criticize the violence. After a fight erupted between protesters and police last year in Birmingham, Trump said: Maybe he should have been roughed up. Of a protester in Nevada last month, Trump said: Id like to punch him in the face. In Kentucky, he said: Get him out. Try not to hurt him. If you do Ill defend you in court. . . . Are Trump rallies the most fun? Were having a good time.

According to CBSNewYork, he referred to an incident at a New Hampshire rally where a protester started swinging and punching. Trump said some people in the audience took him out.

It was really amazing to watch, he said.

At the Fayetteville rally, Trump called protesters professional troublemakers, as ABC reported. As video posted by the Fayetteville News-Observer shows, his speech was repeatedly interrupted as protesters were escorted out and the crowd chanted U.S.A.! He criticized one protester for wearing a very dirty undershirt.

Nor were the protesters enamored of Trump.

He spreads hate, protester Marianna Kuehn told WRAL.

http://www.pressherald.com/2016/03/10/trump-protester-sucker-punched-at-ral ly-amid-cheers-videos-appear-to-show/


DougMacKenzie - 3/10/2016 at 02:25 PM

quote:
You are odd.


Ok, that struck me as really funny. Luv 'ya gina.


bob1954 - 3/10/2016 at 02:43 PM

quote:
quote:
will not even start with all the anomalies, or coincidences. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt the steel, thermite was used, first responders saw it. People in the bldgs., first responders and others, felt the bombs going off in the bldgs. etc. etc.




Whoever said the metal melted? It didn't it was simply hot enough to collapse under the weight of the building over it. And what has this got to do with Trump? You are odd.

BTW, Trump has never said what any of his plans were because everything he says is just rhetoric. But after reading the quote above, I can see that you are very gullible.


For those of us with an engineering background this is basic Materials 101 stuff:



The temperature effect on the strength of metals has nothing to do with the melting point of the material.


heineken515 - 3/10/2016 at 02:49 PM

Then there is this:

http://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/13423-cair-super-tuesday-po ll-shows-muslim-voters-support-hillary-clinton-concerned-about-islamophobia .html


Bhawk - 3/10/2016 at 03:21 PM

Then there is what?

Less than 50% of 1% of the country's population supports Hillary Clinton for President, the same voting bloc that went 80% for President Bush over Al Gore.

So, what's the "this?"


heineken515 - 3/10/2016 at 03:34 PM

I was simply pointing out that in the poll mentioned, that Muslim voters overwhelmingly support Trump over the other Republican candidates.

More proof that whatever he says or does, does not seem to matter.


Muleman1994 - 3/10/2016 at 04:02 PM

CAIR - The Council on AmericanIslamic Relations

Oh yea, what wonderful folks. This the group that after 9/11 had a banner on their homepage that read Dont talk to the FBI.

As a Hamas front group that are big time supporters of The Muslim Brotherhood it isnt difficult to understand why CAIR are senior advisors to Obama.

Id imagine there is no polling methodology available or the actual questions asked. It would be nice to have a list of the people polled


gondicar - 3/10/2016 at 04:19 PM

quote:
CAIR - The Council on AmericanIslamic Relations

Oh yea, what wonderful folks. This the group that after 9/11 had a banner on their homepage that read Dont talk to the FBI.

As a Hamas front group that are big time supporters of The Muslim Brotherhood it isnt difficult to understand why CAIR are senior advisors to Obama.


The Donald would be proud of you, making stuff up like this is right out of the Trump campaign playbook.


LeglizHemp - 3/10/2016 at 06:24 PM

http://www.vice.com/read/all-the-evidence-we-could-find-about-fred-trumps-a lleged-involvement-with-the-kkk


Muleman1994 - 3/11/2016 at 07:32 PM

Report: 46,000 Pa. Democrats Become Republicans Due To Trump

March 10, 2016 11:08 AM

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) Nearly 46,000 Pennsylvania Democrats have switched to Republicans since the beginning of the year.

According to Penn Live, some experts attribute the mass exodus to Donald Trump.

Theres even a title for the movement. Its called Ditch and Switch and calls for lifelong Democrats to abandon the party, register Republican, and help ensure Trumps place in the general election.

Professor of Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College , Dr. G. Terry Madonna, tells the paper he has a theory behind the switch.

With the increase in support in exit polls for Trump among working class, blue-collar Democrats, it is my belief that these are people who fall into that genre, said Madonna.
The numbers are similar in other states as well.

The paper says in Massachusetts, as many as 20,000 Democrats have gone from blue-to-red this year with Trump cited as a primary reason. And in Ohio, as many as 1,000 blue collar workers have promised to switch parties and vote for Trump.

Numbers show that some Republicans are also switching to the Democratic party, but nowhere near the numbers that are switching to Republican.

Records show that the party changes seen in the first two months of 2016 are twice those seen in all of 2013.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/03/10/report-46000-pa-democrats-become- republicans-due-to-trump/

Ohio's 'dirty little secret': blue-collar Democrats for Trump
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-ohio-insight-idUSMTZSA PEC3ATLGUM9


bob1954 - 3/11/2016 at 07:42 PM

quote:
Report: 46,000 Pa. Democrats Become Republicans Due To Trump

March 10, 2016 11:08 AM

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) Nearly 46,000 Pennsylvania Democrats have switched to Republicans since the beginning of the year.

According to Penn Live, some experts attribute the mass exodus to Donald Trump.

Theres even a title for the movement. Its called Ditch and Switch and calls for lifelong Democrats to abandon the party, register Republican, and help ensure Trumps place in the general election.

Professor of Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College , Dr. G. Terry Madonna, tells the paper he has a theory behind the switch.

With the increase in support in exit polls for Trump among working class, blue-collar Democrats, it is my belief that these are people who fall into that genre, said Madonna.
The numbers are similar in other states as well.

The paper says in Massachusetts, as many as 20,000 Democrats have gone from blue-to-red this year with Trump cited as a primary reason. And in Ohio, as many as 1,000 blue collar workers have promised to switch parties and vote for Trump.

Numbers show that some Republicans are also switching to the Democratic party, but nowhere near the numbers that are switching to Republican.

Records show that the party changes seen in the first two months of 2016 are twice those seen in all of 2013.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/03/10/report-46000-pa-democrats-become- republicans-due-to-trump/

Ohio's 'dirty little secret': blue-collar Democrats for Trump
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-ohio-insight-idUSMTZSA PEC3ATLGUM9

Not surprising that Democrats would switch to insure that Trump is the Republican nominee. He's the best thing to happen to the Democrats in a long time.


heineken515 - 3/11/2016 at 08:19 PM


nebish - 3/11/2016 at 08:25 PM

quote:
Not surprising that Democrats would switch to insure that Trump is the Republican nominee. He's the best thing to happen to the Democrats in a long time.




That isn't what is happening here.

A reporter from CNN is in Youngstown and the Mahoning Valley this week doing a story on the number of Democrats that have been taking the Republican ballot in support of Trump. I forget the reporters name, he was on our local talk radio show with Ron Verb yesterday.

The thing with the blue collar workers appeal to Trump centers on the trade issue and giant sucking sound and the deindustrialization of this country.

This was steel country, it's still largely been a manufacturing area, just much smaller now.

Through Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and now Obama people here have seen their lot in life diminish, much less improve, and the prospects for future job opportunities do not look bright with more of the same mainstream politicians preach.

People are tired of the same old promises...or lies.

No matter where you are on Trump, maybe his promises are lies too. But people are seeing things differently.

The fact of the matter is alot of these people who have voted Democrat their entire lives just don't see things the way some on this message board might on certain hot button issues often discussed here. If you vote Democrat strictly because you're union and you've always thought that was the best way and don't care or subscribe to any of the other principles of the Democrat party then there is a giant feeling of betrayal and thrown away votes on past Presidents. Because what has it gotten them, where has it gotten them?

They could vote for Bernie...he has the same positions as Trump on trade, but Trump has tapped into something in this Democrat stronghold of Mahoning and Trumbull County Ohio. We'll see how the results go next week.

[Edited on 3/11/2016 by nebish]


bob1954 - 3/11/2016 at 08:33 PM

quote:
quote:
Not surprising that Democrats would switch to insure that Trump is the Republican nominee. He's the best thing to happen to the Democrats in a long time.




That isn't what is happening here.

A reporter from CNN is in Youngstown and the Mahoning Valley this week doing a story on the number of Democrats that have been taking the Republican ballot in support of Trump. I forget the reporters name, he was on our local talk radio show with Ron Verb yesterday.

The thing with the blue collar workers appeal to Trump centers on the trade issue and giant sucking sound and the deindustrialization of this country.

This was steel country, it's still largely been a manufacturing area, just much smaller now.

Through Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and now Obama people here have seen their lot in life diminish, much less improve, and the prospects for future job opportunities do not look bright with more of the same mainstream politicians preach.

People are tired of the same old promises...or lies.

No matter where you are on Trump, maybe his promises are lies too. But people are seeing things differently.

The fact of the matter is alot of these people who have voted Democrat their entire lives just don't see things the way some on this message board might on certain hot button issues often discussed here. If you vote Democrat strictly because you're union and you've always thought that was the best way and don't care or subscribe to any of the other principles of the Democrat party then there is a giant feeling of betrayal and thrown away votes on past Presidents. Because what has it gotten them, where has it gotten them?

They could vote for Bernie...he has the same positions as Trump on trade, but Trump has tapped into something in this Democrat stronghold of Mahoning and Trumbull County Ohio. We'll see how the results go next week.

None of that changes the fact that Trump is unelectable and the Democrats know that.


gondicar - 3/11/2016 at 08:43 PM

quote:
People are tired of the same old promises...or lies.

This is what is so astonishing about Trump. He lies (or simply gets his facts wrong) as much as if not more than any of the other candidates, and he's not even good it at it...the majority of his lies are so far-fetched that they don't even pass the straight face test most of the time, and when's is wrong on facts no one cares. He's offered little to nothing in the way of actual policy initiatives that include "how to" explanations to support the things he says he's going to do (Q: How are you going to Make American Great Again, Mr. Trump? A: Doesn't matter because we're just going to do it.). And his complete lack of decorum and class is unlike anything I've ever seen in politics or experienced in business. He is a caricature, a snake oil salesman, and a xenophobic demagogue all rolled into one. The only thing I'm left with to try to explain his electoral success to this point is that it has been based solely on the weakness of the other candidates.


BIGV - 3/11/2016 at 08:43 PM

quote:
None of that changes the fact that Trump is unelectable and the Democrats know that.


No, Democrats are praying this is true.


bob1954 - 3/11/2016 at 08:56 PM

quote:
quote:
None of that changes the fact that Trump is unelectable and the Democrats know that.

No, Democrats are praying this is true.

I'm sure they are doing more than praying. Trump supporters, while wrong-headed (my opinion), are extremely motivated. They are showing up in droves to vote in the primaries. Yet, while he is admittedly the Republican front-runner, he can only muster 30-35% of the Republican vote. The other 60-65% is split between 3 candidates. Do you really believe that a significant number of supporters of other candidates would switch their support to Trump if their preferred candidate dropped out? Not likely. So how is a guy with only a third of his party's support going to win in the general? He has a corner on the pissed-off voters, but he's already tapped out that demographic. If he wants to win clear-thinking voters he's going to have to come up with more than, "It will be great, believe me". But does he have more? I don't think so. So he loses. He would lose one-on-one to any Republican candidate and he will lose to Hillary. That's just my opinion based upon what I see. Novemeber may prove me wrong, but I doubt it.


BIGV - 3/11/2016 at 09:12 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
None of that changes the fact that Trump is unelectable and the Democrats know that.

No, Democrats are praying this is true.


I'm sure they are doing more than praying. /// November may prove me wrong, but I doubt it.


Doubt away, personally I can not throw him my vote, but I understand where his popularity stems from. People are sick and tired of Political correctness and more of the same. Stuffed shirts who spew whatever they believe the public will swallow. I think the "Trump effect" also explains Bernie Saunders.....Hillary on the other hand shows me just how stupid and gullible Democrats are; who and where would she be if it were not for her last name?

I think you may need a ride to Canada.


bob1954 - 3/11/2016 at 09:16 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
None of that changes the fact that Trump is unelectable and the Democrats know that.

No, Democrats are praying this is true.


I'm sure they are doing more than praying. /// November may prove me wrong, but I doubt it.


Doubt away, personally I can not throw him my vote, but I understand where his popularity stems from. People are sick and tired of Political correctness and more of the same. Stuffed shirts who spew whatever they believe the public will swallow. I think the "Trump effect" also explains Bernie Saunders.....Hillary on the other hand shows me just how stupid and gullible Democrats are; who and where would she be if it were not for her last name?

I think you may need a ride to Canada.


I don't disagree with anything you say except for my need to go to Canada. Trump loses. Hillary wins. I go to a small cabin off the grid in Montana.

BTW, I am a little hurt that you dismissed my brilliant logic with a "///".

[Edited on 3/11/2016 by bob1954]


gondicar - 3/11/2016 at 09:30 PM

quote:
Stuffed shirts who spew whatever they believe the public will swallow.

Funny, I think this is EXACTLY what Trump is doing...he's is playing to a specific segment of the electorate and they are lapping it up. I'm just not sure his appeal will broad enough to win in a general election, although that also depends who the other choice(s) is/are.

quote:
I think you may need a ride to Canada.


If there were an American version of Trudeau running for POTUS I think he could win in a landslide.


LeglizHemp - 3/11/2016 at 09:31 PM

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

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Mercantilism.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/us/politics/-trade-donald-trump-breaks-20 0-years-economic-orthodoxy-mercantilism.html?_r=0


gondicar - 3/11/2016 at 09:41 PM

quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Mercantilism.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/us/politics/-trade-donald-trump-breaks-20 0-years-economic-orthodoxy-mercantilism.html?_r=0


Good stuff. Thanks.


Muleman1994 - 3/11/2016 at 10:00 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:

Re: diverse support - Women make up biggest voting block, & in national election I doubt he takes that significant segment of voters. He won't win the black vote, and with his "kind" words he can write off Hispanics where he's got an unfavorable rating of about 80%. Then there is the Muslim vote - another of his favorite targets, and I'm guessing he'd be in the single digits at best.


I'm still back at will he get the nomination. One thing that many talking heads get wrong is that "women" are a category. There are white, hispanic, black, asian, and other women of various religions and levels of education. I've read articles - most notably by Gloria Steinheim - that she's shocked "women" aren't voting for Hillary in order to elect the first woman president. Young women voters don't see that as a deal breaker or maker; they vote on issues.

But hey, Trump loves "undereducated people" so I guess that's a separate category to consider.




I was put off by the Steiheim mantra. On the other hand "women" are a category and what you correctly described would fall into subcategories. I will go on record right now and say that whoever the Dem. candidate is will win the "women" vote regardless of who the GOP candidate is. With his attitude towards women and repulsive comments, Trump would do worse than anyone else the GOP would nominate. (see Megyn Kelly for but one example).

But, hey listen to Trump, and he will tell you how much everyone loves him. Talk condescendingly to people, and they will come out in droves to vote for him...pretty simple, Donald...right?

________________________________________________________________________

And the people are coming out in droves to vote for him.
Hundreds of thousands of democrats are dumping that party, signing up as Republicans and voting for Trump!

Not one of the liberals here has any idea why Republican voters a coming out in record setting numbers and the number of votes for democrats is way down.



LeglizHemp - 3/11/2016 at 10:03 PM

quote:
quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Mercantilism.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/us/politics/-trade-donald-trump-breaks-20 0-years-economic-orthodoxy-mercantilism.html?_r=0


Good stuff. Thanks.


well it's a kinda basic background thing. Trump doesn't actually say what his trade policies will be. He talks in simple terms so i'll reply in simple terms.


LeglizHemp - 3/11/2016 at 11:03 PM

http://ktla.com/2016/03/11/violence-erupts-at-donald-trump-rally-in-st-loui s/


gina - 3/11/2016 at 11:28 PM

I'm voting for Trump, and if he does not get the nomination, then I will go with Cruz; if they give it to Rubio I will write in Alex Jones. Trump knows there is a problem in Islam but he does not know much about it. Maybe I should get him a Quran and a Bible because if he is the nominee, he will be tested like never before, and will have a BIG responsibility to all people.

There is a war going on, Osama called it a Holy War, and the Muslims are trying to lead the way, but in many instances they are not completely correct. There is the sectarianism, quasi militia groups, backed by different governments who just want to stir things up and take out different govts. and regimes. There is also a war going on among the un-Godly people who want to create their New World Order, ungodly people enslaving other ungodly people and trying to get anyone who has any sense of God out of the way entirely.

With all this going on, I think we need new leadership. Trump offers a chance at that, I also think he will not bow down to the the anti-Christ or give America and it's people over to be ruled by the anti-Christ.













[Edited on 3/12/2016 by gina]


nebish - 3/12/2016 at 04:52 AM

quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Mercantilism.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/us/politics/-trade-donald-trump-breaks-20 0-years-economic-orthodoxy-mercantilism.html?_r=0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



Good stuff. Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



well it's a kinda basic background thing. Trump doesn't actually say what his trade policies will be. He talks in simple terms so i'll reply in simple terms.



And what is the point here?

Do you support NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, Favored Nation Status with China, TPP? Do you support a group like the WTO dictating to the US what is and isnt acceptable to us? To you are these good things for the US economy? And you want more of the same?

I dont.

What do you take from comparing free trade in practice and theory to free trade in reality and outcomes?

The NY Times link tells the story of tariff on Chinese tires resulted in Americans spending 1.1 billion more on tires. Well, did we spend more money for Chinese tires? If we did atleast the Government got some tax out of it (which can go to spend on some of those safety net programs displaced US workers rely on). Or when those tires were more expensive did those sales go to American tire companies who produced tires in the US? If the question is should Goodyear get the sale or some Chinese company, what do you think that answer should be? If the question is should we be paying an American worker at an American factory in an American community (who pays taxes and supports local economies) OR a Chinese worker, at a Chinese factory in China who supports the Chinese economy..what do you want that answer to be? Not to mention labor and environmental abuses that liberals care so much about...where is a better place for us to be buying tires from, China or the US? Low cost import tires put pressure on Goodyear to close plants here and make tires somewhere else. So we bring in Chinese tires, free and clear with no tariff...American tire companies feel the competitive pressure and close a plant say Oklahoma and make the same tire in say Thailand. The people in Oklahoma lose their jobs, the community loses a huge stream of local taxes and enrollment in social programs and government assistance grows. That is a good equation and outcome for you?

Economists love the concept of outsourcing, because by outsourcing low skill work it frees up resources for what they are more productive at. The problem is what if those resources (like US workers) dont have equal or better paying opportunities? The corporation reaps huge benefits, at the expense of American workers that they can now kick to the curb. I guess this is what you want?

The State Department pushed for trade in the early 1900s as a way to achieve foreign policy objectives. Once corporations realized the amazing profit potential of moving operations to countries with lower overhead and operating costs it was a match made in heaven for both government and corporate bottom lines. Put it together with campaign donations and lobbyists and we fell stuck into the rut of more and more free trade. To hell with the displaced workers, put them on social services or have them take that lower paying job and maybe if they are buying cheaper stuff it wont hurt that bad. A race to the bottom, cheaper wages, cheaper goods, lower standard of living and less prosperity (except for those capitalizing on bigger profits from foreign production).

This is THE market to be in. This market should have an entry fee for outsiders.

We can tariff 1 of the 10 or so Kias that are imported from Korea (I believe they make 2 or 3 models here and import about 8 or 9 models). What will Kias response be? It may be in their interest to expand manufacturing of more Kia models here instead of paying the tariff. That is a good development for American workers. That is a good outcome, foreign investment here spurring construction and jobs that add value to the end product meaning good wages (not some $15 minimum wage figure pulled out of the air). Plus schools and police and fire and parks and libraries all have a better tax base for their necessary revenue. And less people dependent on social welfare and safety net programs. This is a win!

I am an economic nationalist. I dont see protecting something as a bad thing. Do you, protectionism is good when it comes to a national forest for instance, but bad when it comes to US workers? I do want trade managed in a way that benefits our workers and our nation.

Economists think on a global scale. We need somebody to think on a USA scale. If you are happy with the state of the US economy, then I guess vote for another mainstream candidate and we will get more and more of the same...sold down the river by the government and corporations. Sanders or Trump are the candidates on this issue. Only Sanders and Trump.


BoytonBrother - 3/12/2016 at 02:00 PM

quote:
Not one of the liberals here has any idea why Republican voters a coming out in record setting numbers and the number of votes for democrats is way down.


Here's an idea. Our country has been getting more and more dysfunctional over the past few decades. More and more families are broken and filled with anger with no supportive outlet to deal with it. Those who are angry, hateful, and dysfunctional are coming out in droves to vote for Trump - it is their supportive outlet they have been yearning for. As for the low voter turnout for Democrats, if that's even true, I can only speak for myself when I say that I have no interest in voting because I believe nothing will get done no matter who is in office due to the childish corruption in Washington. How is that?


LeglizHemp - 3/12/2016 at 02:27 PM

quote:
quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Mercantilism.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/us/politics/-trade-donald-trump-breaks-20 0-years-economic-orthodoxy-mercantilism.html?_r=0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



Good stuff. Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



well it's a kinda basic background thing. Trump doesn't actually say what his trade policies will be. He talks in simple terms so i'll reply in simple terms.



And what is the point here?

Do you support NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, Favored Nation Status with China, TPP? Do you support a group like the WTO dictating to the US what is and isnt acceptable to us? To you are these good things for the US economy? And you want more of the same?

I dont.

What do you take from comparing free trade in practice and theory to free trade in reality and outcomes?

The NY Times link tells the story of tariff on Chinese tires resulted in Americans spending 1.1 billion more on tires. Well, did we spend more money for Chinese tires? If we did atleast the Government got some tax out of it (which can go to spend on some of those safety net programs displaced US workers rely on). Or when those tires were more expensive did those sales go to American tire companies who produced tires in the US? If the question is should Goodyear get the sale or some Chinese company, what do you think that answer should be? If the question is should we be paying an American worker at an American factory in an American community (who pays taxes and supports local economies) OR a Chinese worker, at a Chinese factory in China who supports the Chinese economy..what do you want that answer to be? Not to mention labor and environmental abuses that liberals care so much about...where is a better place for us to be buying tires from, China or the US? Low cost import tires put pressure on Goodyear to close plants here and make tires somewhere else. So we bring in Chinese tires, free and clear with no tariff...American tire companies feel the competitive pressure and close a plant say Oklahoma and make the same tire in say Thailand. The people in Oklahoma lose their jobs, the community loses a huge stream of local taxes and enrollment in social programs and government assistance grows. That is a good equation and outcome for you?

Economists love the concept of outsourcing, because by outsourcing low skill work it frees up resources for what they are more productive at. The problem is what if those resources (like US workers) dont have equal or better paying opportunities? The corporation reaps huge benefits, at the expense of American workers that they can now kick to the curb. I guess this is what you want?

The State Department pushed for trade in the early 1900s as a way to achieve foreign policy objectives. Once corporations realized the amazing profit potential of moving operations to countries with lower overhead and operating costs it was a match made in heaven for both government and corporate bottom lines. Put it together with campaign donations and lobbyists and we fell stuck into the rut of more and more free trade. To hell with the displaced workers, put them on social services or have them take that lower paying job and maybe if they are buying cheaper stuff it wont hurt that bad. A race to the bottom, cheaper wages, cheaper goods, lower standard of living and less prosperity (except for those capitalizing on bigger profits from foreign production).

This is THE market to be in. This market should have an entry fee for outsiders.

We can tariff 1 of the 10 or so Kias that are imported from Korea (I believe they make 2 or 3 models here and import about 8 or 9 models). What will Kias response be? It may be in their interest to expand manufacturing of more Kia models here instead of paying the tariff. That is a good development for American workers. That is a good outcome, foreign investment here spurring construction and jobs that add value to the end product meaning good wages (not some $15 minimum wage figure pulled out of the air). Plus schools and police and fire and parks and libraries all have a better tax base for their necessary revenue. And less people dependent on social welfare and safety net programs. This is a win!

I am an economic nationalist. I dont see protecting something as a bad thing. Do you, protectionism is good when it comes to a national forest for instance, but bad when it comes to US workers? I do want trade managed in a way that benefits our workers and our nation.

Economists think on a global scale. We need somebody to think on a USA scale. If you are happy with the state of the US economy, then I guess vote for another mainstream candidate and we will get more and more of the same...sold down the river by the government and corporations. Sanders or Trump are the candidates on this issue. Only Sanders and Trump.




i believe free trade has benefited more americans than it has hurt.


MartinD28 - 3/12/2016 at 05:16 PM

quote:
quote:
Not one of the liberals here has any idea why Republican voters a coming out in record setting numbers and the number of votes for democrats is way down.


Here's an idea. Our country has been getting more and more dysfunctional over the past few decades. More and more families are broken and filled with anger with no supportive outlet to deal with it. Those who are angry, hateful, and dysfunctional are coming out in droves to vote for Trump - it is their supportive outlet they have been yearning for. As for the low voter turnout for Democrats, if that's even true, I can only speak for myself when I say that I have no interest in voting because I believe nothing will get done no matter who is in office due to the childish corruption in Washington. How is that?


Sad but true. I believe we're at a point where gov't is just gov't. I don't believe there is anyone in either party that can really make significant differences. Minor changes...yes. The followers of Trump are delusional if they think he will any different...maybe more of a loud mouth as we see examples of that every day from him. However, he will be forced to work within a system that even he can't control. He'd also have to work with a Republican Congress, and he's not a Republican. "The great deal maker" will find that brokering deals with Congress and the world are not as oversimplified as he touts in his whip up the anger rallies.

The above assumes he will be elected which I believe is highly doubtful.


nebish - 3/12/2016 at 05:44 PM

quote:

i believe free trade has benefited more americans than it has hurt.


So wages have been going up? Americans have more job opportunities? Income inequality has been going down? Trade deficits don't matter and neither do budget deficits? And parents still feel their kids will be better off than they are?

I'd like to live in the America you think you are seeing.

The devastating effects of trade deals that favor foreign nations and workers at the expense of our nation and our workers just is not a problem from where you stand.


BIGV - 3/12/2016 at 06:41 PM

quote:
"dysfunctional" "broken" " filled with anger" "angry" "hateful"


Typical. This is how the left classifies anyone who disagrees with their views, because, well they are either just bigots, racists, Homophobic & ignorant. Be like us, the tolerant ones, or else......

Yep, this must be the only answer.


gina - 3/12/2016 at 07:45 PM

quote:
Report: 46,000 Pa. Democrats Become Republicans Due To Trump

March 10, 2016 11:08 AM

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) Nearly 46,000 Pennsylvania Democrats have switched to Republicans since the beginning of the year.

According to Penn Live, some experts attribute the mass exodus to Donald Trump.

Theres even a title for the movement. Its called Ditch and Switch and calls for lifelong Democrats to abandon the party, register Republican, and help ensure Trumps place in the general election.

Professor of Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College , Dr. G. Terry Madonna, tells the paper he has a theory behind the switch.

With the increase in support in exit polls for Trump among working class, blue-collar Democrats, it is my belief that these are people who fall into that genre, said Madonna.
The numbers are similar in other states as well.

The paper says in Massachusetts, as many as 20,000 Democrats have gone from blue-to-red this year with Trump cited as a primary reason. And in Ohio, as many as 1,000 blue collar workers have promised to switch parties and vote for Trump.

Numbers show that some Republicans are also switching to the Democratic party, but nowhere near the numbers that are switching to Republican.

Records show that the party changes seen in the first two months of 2016 are twice those seen in all of 2013.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/03/10/report-46000-pa-democrats-become- republicans-due-to-trump/

Ohio's 'dirty little secret': blue-collar Democrats for Trump
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-ohio-insight-idUSMTZSA PEC3ATLGUM9




We ought to do that in New York.


gina - 3/12/2016 at 07:51 PM

quote:
quote:
will not even start with all the anomalies, or coincidences. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt the steel, thermite was used, first responders saw it. People in the bldgs., first responders and others, felt the bombs going off in the bldgs. etc. etc.




Whoever said the metal melted? It didn't it was simply hot enough to collapse under the weight of the building over it. And what has this got to do with Trump? You are odd.

BTW, Trump has never said what any of his plans were because everything he says is just rhetoric. But after reading the quote above, I can see that you are very gullible.


Whoever said the molten metal melted? First responders saw it when they were there, I saw it in documentaries, and it is probably documented also.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affiliate-marketing-program/899-what-was-the- molten-metal-seen-pouring-out-of-the-south-tower-minutes-before-its-collaps e-steel-and-iron-or-aluminum-andor-lead.html

The Official Fire-Based Hypothesis Cannot Account for the Red-Hot Steel Beams and Pools of Molten Metal Seen During the First Weeks of Clean-up

Numerous professionals have testified that they saw "molten steel" beneath the Ground Zero rubble.

See photos on the webpage and links.


jkeller - 3/12/2016 at 10:40 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
will not even start with all the anomalies, or coincidences. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt the steel, thermite was used, first responders saw it. People in the bldgs., first responders and others, felt the bombs going off in the bldgs. etc. etc.




Whoever said the metal melted? It didn't it was simply hot enough to collapse under the weight of the building over it. And what has this got to do with Trump? You are odd.

BTW, Trump has never said what any of his plans were because everything he says is just rhetoric. But after reading the quote above, I can see that you are very gullible.


Whoever said the molten metal melted? First responders saw it when they were there, I saw it in documentaries, and it is probably documented also.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affiliate-marketing-program/899-what-was-the- molten-metal-seen-pouring-out-of-the-south-tower-minutes-before-its-collaps e-steel-and-iron-or-aluminum-andor-lead.html

The Official Fire-Based Hypothesis Cannot Account for the Red-Hot Steel Beams and Pools of Molten Metal Seen During the First Weeks of Clean-up

Numerous professionals have testified that they saw "molten steel" beneath the Ground Zero rubble.

See photos on the webpage and links.



There are so many holes in that piece that it would be a waste of time to cover them. Just to give you one example, the piece claims that the only aluminum would have been from the plane. Not true. When the building was built, it was built with all floors open, no individual offices. when the floors were partitioned into rooms, aluminum was used for the studs that the wallboard was nailed to. Plus, seeing as the WTC was built in the early 70's, the electrical wiring in the building may very well have aluminum.

It is easy to see why you support Trump. You are extremely gullible.


BIGV - 3/13/2016 at 12:56 AM

Just another thought on Mr. Trump. I am currently sitting at my home desk, dancing around the the net, with CNN on the TV in the other room. They are "Covering" an upcoming speaking engagement by the aforementioned "candidate" like he is a visiting dignitary from another planet.......(hitting the return button, this is on FOX & MSNBC as well)....so as CNN was going to a commercial, they had a camera outside the event venue focused on the people in line and gheesh, not the best dressed lot. Watching this, one can not help but feel that the media is almost hoping for violence.......ratings baby. So I was thinking, if success in any campaign, for any office is dependent on mobilization and the ability to appeal to one's base......What percentage of "Middle America" and for lack of a better term "lower class" voters is he sending to the polls?...What % of this country do "they" account for? The scary part to me is that he is speaking to a larger group of new listeners every day......A possible, true silent majority.....

Lord Help Us


alloak41 - 3/13/2016 at 02:50 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Not one of the liberals here has any idea why Republican voters a coming out in record setting numbers and the number of votes for democrats is way down.


Here's an idea. Our country has been getting more and more dysfunctional over the past few decades. More and more families are broken and filled with anger with no supportive outlet to deal with it. Those who are angry, hateful, and dysfunctional are coming out in droves to vote for Trump - it is their supportive outlet they have been yearning for. As for the low voter turnout for Democrats, if that's even true, I can only speak for myself when I say that I have no interest in voting because I believe nothing will get done no matter who is in office due to the childish corruption in Washington. How is that?


Sad but true. I believe we're at a point where gov't is just gov't. I don't believe there is anyone in either party that can really make significant differences. Minor changes...yes. The followers of Trump are delusional if they think he will any different...maybe more of a loud mouth as we see examples of that every day from him. However, he will be forced to work within a system that even he can't control. He'd also have to work with a Republican Congress, and he's not a Republican. "The great deal maker" will find that brokering deals with Congress and the world are not as oversimplified as he touts in his whip up the anger rallies.



Maybe a non-politician will finally get a chance. It's a mistake to automatically assume Trump would do a poor job. Give him a chance. If he fails, vote him out in four. We'll survive.


MartinD28 - 3/13/2016 at 03:44 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Not one of the liberals here has any idea why Republican voters a coming out in record setting numbers and the number of votes for democrats is way down.


Here's an idea. Our country has been getting more and more dysfunctional over the past few decades. More and more families are broken and filled with anger with no supportive outlet to deal with it. Those who are angry, hateful, and dysfunctional are coming out in droves to vote for Trump - it is their supportive outlet they have been yearning for. As for the low voter turnout for Democrats, if that's even true, I can only speak for myself when I say that I have no interest in voting because I believe nothing will get done no matter who is in office due to the childish corruption in Washington. How is that?


Sad but true. I believe we're at a point where gov't is just gov't. I don't believe there is anyone in either party that can really make significant differences. Minor changes...yes. The followers of Trump are delusional if they think he will any different...maybe more of a loud mouth as we see examples of that every day from him. However, he will be forced to work within a system that even he can't control. He'd also have to work with a Republican Congress, and he's not a Republican. "The great deal maker" will find that brokering deals with Congress and the world are not as oversimplified as he touts in his whip up the anger rallies.



Maybe a non-politician will finally get a chance. It's a mistake to automatically assume Trump would do a poor job. Give him a chance. If he fails, vote him out in four. We'll survive.


A non-politician would be welcomed. Trump, the non-politician would be a disaster. Haven't you seen the vitriol he spews at his rallies, speeches, and in debates? He has taken serious discussion to an all time low. The garbage that comes out of his mouth is repulsive and dangerous.

Will you vote for him, alloak?


BoytonBrother - 3/13/2016 at 09:36 AM

But I thought Obama didn't have any experience, and was just a community organizer? Time to make America dysfunctional again I guess. One would think we'd learn something from Obama - that a polarizing figure leads to gridlock. Have Trump supporters learned anything? Probably not. Just as Obama was blocked everywhere he turned, so will Trump. We need a President who can actually get things done. Sadly, the ones who can make a positive difference won't stand a chance in the polls.


MarkRamsey - 3/13/2016 at 05:53 PM

Hell will freeze over before I vote for Richie rich the stubby fingered fat boy.


heineken515 - 3/14/2016 at 01:24 PM

The Republican National Committees rulemakers will meet a week before the Convention, and, though they dont have absolute discretionthe delegates must approve key rule changesthey may try to make winning harder for Trump. There are risks in that, given that many of Trumps supporters already believe that the system is rigged. The G.O.P. may have to decide what scares it more: losing without Trump or winning with him.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/21/donald-trump-and-contested-con ventions?mbid=gnep&intcid=gnep&google_editors_picks=true


gondicar - 3/16/2016 at 06:47 PM

Amazing that this guy continues to spew lie after lie without any compunction whatsoever and people just lap it up...


Donald Trump said that a Pew Research Center survey found that among the world’s Muslims, “27 percent, could be 35 percent, would go to war” against the U.S. The Pew Research Center says it has conducted no survey that asks such a question, nor did experts we consulted know of any such survey. One expert we talked to called Trump’s claim “nonsense.” Another told us it had “no scientific basis.”

Trump’s statement came when “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace asked Trump about his blanket statement during a March 9 interview on CNN that “Islam hates us.” (Trump doubled down on that statement during the Republican debate the following night.)

On “Fox News Sunday,” Wallace said that among the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, “according to the best experts, think tanks around the world, they say at most, 100,000 people are fighting for jihadist causes. That’s less than — it’s a tiny fraction of 1 percent.”

Trump said Wallace’s figure was “about as wrong as you can get” and that “27 percent, could be 35 percent, would go to war.” Trump cited Pew as his source...

Trump, March 13: You’re saying that out of 1.5 billion, 100,000, right — let me tell you, whoever did that survey was about as wrong as you can get. It’s 27 percent, could be 35 percent, would go to war, would — the hatred is tremendous, Chris.

Wallace: … Wait, wait, you’re saying 250 — you’re saying 250 — 300 million Muslims would go to war against us?

Trump: Why don’t you take a look at the Pew poll that came out very recently or fairly recently, where I think the number — I mean, I could be corrected, it’s whatever it is — but it’s something like 27 percent are, you know, really very militant about going after things.

And you’ll have to look at it. They did a very strong study. And let’s see what it says. But it’s a very significant number. It’s not 100,000 people, I can tell you that. It’s a ridiculous number.

But, look, there’s something going on, Chris, whether you like it or not. It would be easier for me to say, “Oh, no, everybody loves us.” But there’s something going on. There’s a big problem. And radical Islamic terrorism is taking place all over the world.


http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/trumps-false-muslim-claim/

[Edited on 3/16/2016 by gondicar]


nebish - 3/16/2016 at 07:59 PM

quote:
Amazing that this guy continues to spew lie after lie without any compunction whatsoever and people just lap it up...


Donald Trump said that a Pew Research Center survey found that among the world’s Muslims, “27 percent, could be 35 percent, would go to war” against the U.S. The Pew Research Center says it has conducted no survey that asks such a question, nor did experts we consulted know of any such survey. One expert we talked to called Trump’s claim “nonsense.” Another told us it had “no scientific basis.”

Trump’s statement came when “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace asked Trump about his blanket statement during a March 9 interview on CNN that “Islam hates us.” (Trump doubled down on that statement during the Republican debate the following night.)

On “Fox News Sunday,” Wallace said that among the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, “according to the best experts, think tanks around the world, they say at most, 100,000 people are fighting for jihadist causes. That’s less than — it’s a tiny fraction of 1 percent.”

Trump said Wallace’s figure was “about as wrong as you can get” and that “27 percent, could be 35 percent, would go to war.” Trump cited Pew as his source...

Trump, March 13: You’re saying that out of 1.5 billion, 100,000, right — let me tell you, whoever did that survey was about as wrong as you can get. It’s 27 percent, could be 35 percent, would go to war, would — the hatred is tremendous, Chris.

Wallace: … Wait, wait, you’re saying 250 — you’re saying 250 — 300 million Muslims would go to war against us?

Trump: Why don’t you take a look at the Pew poll that came out very recently or fairly recently, where I think the number — I mean, I could be corrected, it’s whatever it is — but it’s something like 27 percent are, you know, really very militant about going after things.

And you’ll have to look at it. They did a very strong study. And let’s see what it says. But it’s a very significant number. It’s not 100,000 people, I can tell you that. It’s a ridiculous number.

But, look, there’s something going on, Chris, whether you like it or not. It would be easier for me to say, “Oh, no, everybody loves us.” But there’s something going on. There’s a big problem. And radical Islamic terrorism is taking place all over the world.


http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/trumps-false-muslim-claim/

[Edited on 3/16/2016 by gondicar]


Trump is likely making some of these things up.

However, back when squatchtexas (was that his username), in the early 2000s, when there was lively debate around here about terrorism worldwide and who sympathizes with it or supports it, I do remember some Pew Research polling that asking Muslims about terror attacks and if they can be justified and if they support Bin Laden. I will look to see if I can find anything - I doubt that is what Trump is referring to because it was like 10 years ago; who knows what he is referring to. But I'm not willing to crucify him for saying Islam hastes us. There is an appreciable number of Muslims that do support violence against civilians and spreading jihad - let me see if I can back it up, I'll get back to you. While I doubt the question has ever been asked to some number of Muslim's if they hate us, but what if they did ask that question to some number burning the US flag or burning President Obama in effigy or chanting death to America in the streets somewhere? Is it a majority world wide, likely not. That has always been the problem with radical Islam is that the bad ones paint the picture for the whole religion.

But this is what Trump does. He takes something that there may be some truth to it, however then speaks in such broad terms with no specifics or links to where or why he feels this way that it gets easily disregarded. It's my major issue with him. Not that he says that Islam hates us, my issue is that he can't substantiate his position - which I'm pretty sure if he was more intelligent on the issue he could provide some data to back his position up.


Bhawk - 3/16/2016 at 08:30 PM

quote:
It's my major issue with him. Not that he says that Islam hates us, my issue is that he can't substantiate his position - which I'm pretty sure if he was more intelligent on the issue he could provide some data to back his position up.


I would hope that he would at least have a base intelligence to realize that a non-sentient entity cannot "hate" anyone.


gondicar - 3/16/2016 at 08:32 PM

quote:
But this is what Trump does. He takes something that there may be some truth to it, however then speaks in such broad terms with no specifics or links to where or why he feels this way that it gets easily disregarded.

Sounds like you are soft peddling the fact that he flat out makes stuff up, i.e. LIES. All. The. Time.

quote:
It's my major issue with him. Not that he says that Islam hates us, my issue is that he can't substantiate his position - which I'm pretty sure if he was more intelligent on the issue he could provide some data to back his position up.

Except that Islam doesn't hate us. That's made up so he CAN'T substantiate it, except with more made up stuff.



[Edited on 3/16/2016 by gondicar]


Bhawk - 3/16/2016 at 08:37 PM

Kent Brockman: Mr. Simpson, how do you respond to the charges that petty vandalism such as graffiti is down eighty percent, while heavy sack beatings are up a shocking nine hundred percent?

Homer Simpson: Aw, you can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forty percent of all people know that.

Kent Brockman: I see. Well, what do you say to the accusation that your group has been causing more crimes than it's been preventing?

Homer Simpson: Oh, Kent, I'd be lying if I said my men weren't committing crimes.

Kent Brockman: (pause) Well, touché.


bob1954 - 3/16/2016 at 08:38 PM

quote:
quote:
But this is what Trump does. He takes something that there may be some truth to it, however then speaks in such broad terms with no specifics or links to where or why he feels this way that it gets easily disregarded.

Sounds like you are soft peddling the fact that he flat out makes stuff up, i.e. LIES. All. The. Time.

quote:
It's my major issue with him. Not that he says that Islam hates us, my issue is that he can't substantiate his position - which I'm pretty sure if he was more intelligent on the issue he could provide some data to back his position up.

Except that Islam doesn't hate us. That's made up so he CAN'T substantiate it, except with more made up stuff.

For some reason I was just reminded of this guy. Anyone remember Rod Smart? I could have run for President this year and probably made a go of it.


nebish - 3/16/2016 at 08:57 PM

Absolutely anyone can twist statistics to make any point they like.

The problem with Trump is that on some things he doesn't even twist the statistics when trying to make his point.

Islam itself can't do anything very true, it is like an inanimate object, this we know. But I think you know an expression like that has meaning towards the people believing and following Islam. Like saying Christianity hates abortion. Christianity can't hate abortion, but some, or even a majority of people within Christianity can. I mean I don't care if somebody wants to be a Christian and support killing babies, I really don't care, but it seems rather contradictory and it seems like a Christian should hate abortion.

Some might actually try to make the case that Islam hates 'us' based on passages in the Koran calling for jihad against nonbelievers and whatever. I don't really get to into what the Korean says just like I don't really get into what the bible says. However, some have tried to express this point through the years, maybe it is true there are interpretations in the Korean that justify terrorism - and if there are people who subscribe to that belief one could paint with a broad brush and say "the people in that religion hate us and our way of life" - it would be more accurate to say "the people in that religion who believe the radical view hate us and our way of life". But alot of people aren't so careful when they talk and we all use hyperbole to one extent or another.

So anyway, I think I may have found a poll I had previously seen. Again, I highly doubt this is what Trump is referring to, so he either made up what he said or he saw or read something that caused him to say what he said.

A 2005 pew research poll on various issues. Somebody could make the point that if 30.833% (averaged together 2005 results) of Muslims polled in 6 countries have confidence in Osama Bin Laden...it isn't a great leap to say those people also likely hate the USA. I think anyone would have to agree on that point. See table 3 here - http://www.pewglobal.org/2006/05/23/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-mu slim-world/

Now obviously you take Muslims in a certain part of the world and ask them a question like that you are going to get answers skewed one way and then when you come to a more western style country you are going to get answers skewed the other way, so the average would ofcourse come down.

It gets back to making statistics say whatever you want them to yes. If somebody has a point, try to substantiate the point. Trump does not do that. On the other hand if Ted Cruz is going to make a point I guarantee he is going to have some evidence to back himself up. Trump often has little.

I might be defending Trump, maybe because on some things he is pretty close to where I am. But for the record when given a chance to vote for him yesterday I did not. And for the record I don't think every Muslim hates us. Do I think maybe 10% might, that is something I could see being true. Or maybe I just like to take an opposite view here because it is fun.


gina - 3/16/2016 at 11:27 PM

Nebish, Trump does not know much about Islam and probably not much about the End Times that Christianity has predicted. But he did recognize and he said it on Fox News "we've become the world's whippin' post'. Once he realizes the battle is between the Illuminati and power moguls of the world (the ones who flew 70 jets to a private island off Georgia to discuss how to stop his rise to power) versus the good, Godly people of the world. He will be delighted with the task he may be given to manage the world and go up against the anti-Christ. It would be his biggest deal! Trump versus Satan, it doesn't get any bigger than that.

I believe there is hope. He is intelligent and he can be educated. When he is properly educated ( ) he may become a great ally to the correct Islam and correct Christianity.


gondicar - 3/17/2016 at 12:36 AM

Thank goodness for Gina, the voice of reason.


jkeller - 3/17/2016 at 12:53 AM

quote:
Thank goodness for Gina, the voice of reason.


I just wish she would share whatever she is smoking.


Muleman1994 - 3/17/2016 at 02:44 AM

And Donald trump keeps winning primaries, bringing in democrats and independents and is saying in speeches the things the people want talked about.

Hillary Clinton, the only candidate left for the democrats, never utters the words jobs, free and fair trade and national security.

The liberals keep crying while they keep losing.


2112 - 3/17/2016 at 03:32 AM

quote:
And Donald trump keeps winning primaries, bringing in democrats and independents and is saying in speeches the things the people want talked about.

Hillary Clinton, the only candidate left for the democrats, never utters the words jobs, free and fair trade and national security.

The liberals keep crying while they keep losing.




Hillary is going to be the next president and the GOP is going to lose the senate. Trump will be the nail in the coffin of the GOP. Come November the GOP is going to be dealing with a highly fractured party and will be grateful that the still have the house, not that they have ever done anything in the house.


Muleman1994 - 3/17/2016 at 02:31 PM

quote:
quote:
And Donald trump keeps winning primaries, bringing in democrats and independents and is saying in speeches the things the people want talked about.

Hillary Clinton, the only candidate left for the democrats, never utters the words jobs, free and fair trade and national security.

The liberals keep crying while they keep losing.




Hillary is going to be the next president and the GOP is going to lose the senate. Trump will be the nail in the coffin of the GOP. Come November the GOP is going to be dealing with a highly fractured party and will be grateful that the still have the house, not that they have ever done anything in the house.

_______________________________________________________________________

Hillary won't be going to the White House.
She will be going to the Big House.


jkeller - 3/17/2016 at 06:09 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
And Donald trump keeps winning primaries, bringing in democrats and independents and is saying in speeches the things the people want talked about.

Hillary Clinton, the only candidate left for the democrats, never utters the words jobs, free and fair trade and national security.

The liberals keep crying while they keep losing.




Hillary is going to be the next president and the GOP is going to lose the senate. Trump will be the nail in the coffin of the GOP. Come November the GOP is going to be dealing with a highly fractured party and will be grateful that the still have the house, not that they have ever done anything in the house.

_______________________________________________________________________

Hillary won't be going to the White House.
She will be going to the Big House.




I didn't know she was an ABB fan.


Muleman1994 - 3/17/2016 at 06:54 PM

Media, Beltway warnings about Trump a throwback to 1980
Published March 17, 2016

Another day, another dire warning about Donald Trump’s growing power. This time, The Washington Post editorial board declared Republicans must “block” his election, warning he “presents a threat to American democracy.”

This isn’t the first time, however, that the editorial pages and the pundits have tripped the alarms about an outsider Republican candidate.

The warnings about Trump are in some ways a throwback to what was said and written about Ronald Reagan when he ran against Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Then, the former California governor was portrayed as a fascist and compared to Hitler. He was accused of stoking nationalistic fears, and offering simplistic solutions to big issues.
Journalists also pointed to Reagan’s political affiliation with the Democrats for a major part of his life.

Sound familiar?

In July of 1980, Anthony Lewis of the New York Times wrote that Reagan was “bellicose” and “simple-minded,” explaining that as “Reagan has become more deliberate in his remarks on foreign affairs over recent months, that quality has remained -- a sense that he is somehow not connected with the world as it is.”

In Jay Perkins’ coverage for the Associated Press of the 1980 election, he wrote that Reagan’s problem is “not a loose lip but the simple answer. In Mr. Reagan's case it appears to arise from a romanticized image of America. … Translating nostalgia into policy is far more difficult, and dangerous, than he lets on.”

The warnings were more heated from the lawmakers and pundits.
As the American Enterprise Institute’s Steven Hayward recalled in a 2011 piece, Democratic then-Rep. William Clay alleged Reagan was “trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf.”

He added, “Harry Stein (later a conservative convert) wrote in Esquire that the voters who supported Reagan were like the ‘good Germans’ in ‘Hitler’s Germany.’”

Meanwhile, as Trump has faced accusations for shifting positions, Reagan faced many of the same complications in his coverage.

Lou Cannon of the Washington Post wrote in the fall of 1980: “Throughout the fall campaign, this Reagan has muted much of his conservative rhetoric in an effort to reposition himself as a born-again New Dealer sympathetic to the plight of blue-collar workers pinched by unemployment and inflation.”

Cannon went on to write in-depth about the various “versions” of Reagan that appeared, claiming he shifted core values in virtually every election he ran. “This strategy does not sit particularly well with either the handful of Republicans on the party's liberal wing nor with the ultraconservatives who have been largely shut out from key campaign positions.”

Reagan, like Trump, also took heat for his simple answers to questions about complex topics.
In late spring of 1980, Gerald C. Lubenow of Newsweek wrote that Reagan’s appeal to a wide range of voters came from his ability to churn out those answers. Regarding criticisms of Reagan’s substance, Lubenow wrote, “on occasion, such simplicities have gotten Reagan into trouble and generated the impression that his pronouncements are, at best, poorly researched.”

The central narrative on Reagan, though, focused on his nationalistic rhetoric. Indeed, he pushed for voters to rally behind the United States as it prepared to confront the Soviet Union.

President Jimmy Carter’s campaign quickly seized an opportunity to question Reagan’s competence on foreign policy when Reagan publicly supported Taiwan, a statement that had the potential of enflaming Sino-American relations in the event of his election.

In the 2016 cycle, many pundits and Republican rivals also cite Trump’s murky answers to complex issues. They say Trump lacks substance in his answers, and flip-flops – pointing, for instance, to his once-pro-choice stance that has since changed to pro-life.

Opponents say Trump’s changes in position are indicative of how he lacks trustworthiness as a candidate. They say Trump’s rhetoric does damage to the Republican brand, arguing it alienates large groups of people.

But critics also suggest the problems with Trump are far more consequential than past concerns about Reagan.

As the Post editorial board wrote:

“Mr. Trump resembles other strongmen throughout history who have achieved power by manipulating democratic processes. Their playbook includes a casual embrace of violence; a willingness to wield government powers against personal enemies; contempt for a free press; demonization of anyone who is not white and Christian; intimations of dark conspiracies; and the propagation of sweeping, ugly lies.”

Ronald Reagan won in a landslide victory humiliating Carter and the Democrats.



jkeller - 3/17/2016 at 07:04 PM

Of course muledrool didn't give a source to this story because it was Fox News.

foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/17/analysis-media-beltway-warnings-about-trump -throwback-to-1980.html

Fox News. Far right wing source. Dismissed. Next!


gondicar - 3/17/2016 at 07:24 PM

What people across the globe think of Donald Trump
By Jessica King and Wes Little, CNN

Updated 3:04 PM ET, Thu March 17, 2016

(CNN) CNN asked people across the globe what they think of the Republican candidate. Here are three things we learned.

There's a lot of fear

Just how would the world react to a Trump White House? Most people we asked say they're scared. "I'm actually very, very worried," a Hong Kong woman told CNN.

Some fear a breakdown in relations between the United States and other countries, while others are concerned he'll encourage cultural intolerance. The "melting pot we know America as is going to change a lot" a young Cairo student said. Some people are more pessimistic. Standing in front of Berlin's Brandenburg Gate, a woman concluded that "Americans could go back in time with this president."

A few believed that a Trump presidency would lead to World War III.

He has some supporters in Russia and Israel

CNN talked to dozens of everyday people in a range of places: London, Berlin, Moscow, Cairo, Jerusalem, Jakarta and Hong Kong. Not many were Trump fans. But we did find a few -- and they were in just two places.

"He's not quiet, and this is what we need. Someone who will do something," an Israeli man told us from the country's capital. "I welcome the idea" another Jerusalem citizen said.

More than 3,000 miles away, we found supporters on the frigid streets of Russia's capital.

"Donald Trump is more pragmatic because he's a businessman" a Moscow man told CNN, adding that he thinks U.S.-Russia relations would get better if Trump was president. "Trump might change the attitude of Americans towards Russia" echoed another Russian.

Donald Trump is ...

We asked people to finish that sentence. People overwhelmingly said "businessman." "Rich man" and "entertainer" were used a lot, too.

Some people went further.

"Donald Trump is a great businessman, a great speaker -- a motivational speaker -- and a great reality TV star, but by no means a great politician," Jeremy Starr Lam in Hong Kong said. Several words people used are not fit for print.

And while his two supporters in Jerusalem both described Trump as "nice," others just don't know what to think. Some shrugged or winced. A London woman thought about it and simply said: "I'm at a loss for words."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/politics/world-reacts-donald-trump/index.html


gondicar - 3/17/2016 at 09:23 PM

Yes, Trump Said Bush ‘Lied’

By Eugene Kiely
Posted on March 17, 2016

Donald Trump on Fox News denied that he ever accused President George W. Bush of lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. “I didn’t say lie,” Trump said. “I said he may have lied.” That’s false. Trump at least twice — most recently in a debate last month — said Bush “lied.”

Bill O’Reilly, host of Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor,” told Trump (4:06 mark) that he disagreed with Trump on Bush’s motives for invading Iraq in 2003. “I disagree with you vehemently about George Bush, the younger, lying on purpose to get us into a war with Iraq,” O’Reilly said. Trump denied he called Bush a liar.

But Trump did say Bush lied, and on more than one occasion.

In the Feb. 13 debate in South Carolina, debate moderator John Dickerson asked Trump about an October 2008 interview in which Trump said it would have been a “wonderful thing” if Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi tried to impeach Bush because he lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. Asked if he still believes that Bush should have been impeached, Trump called the Iraq war a “big fat mistake.” Pressed again for an answer, Trump went on to say, “They lied.”

As for his 2008 comments, Trump said of Bush in an interview with CNN, “He lied. He got us into the war with lies.” Wolf Blitzer, host of CNN’s “The Situation Room,” pushed back, saying Bush administration officials argue that the intelligence they received was wrong — not that they lied. “I don’t believe that,” Trump responded.

Here is Trump’s exchange with Blitzer, who asked Trump to “grade” public officials:

Blitzer, Oct. 15, 2008: Nancy Pelosi, the speaker?

Trump: Well, you know, when she first got in and was named speaker, I met her. And I’m very impressed by her. I think she’s a very impressive person. I like her a lot. But I was surprised that she didn’t do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush. It was almost — it just seemed like she was going to really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office, which, personally, I think would have been a wonderful thing.

Blitzer: Impeaching him?

Trump: Absolutely, for the war, for the war.

Blitzer: Because of the conduct of the war.

Trump: Well, he lied. He got us into the war with lies. And, I mean, look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant. And they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. And, yet, Bush got us into this horrible war with lies, by lying, by saying they had weapons of mass destruction, by saying all sorts of things that turned out not to be true.

(CROSSTALK)

Blitzer: Their argument is, they weren’t lying, that that was the intelligence that he was presented, and it was not as if he was just lying about it.

Trump: I don’t believe that.

Blitzer: You believe that it was a deliberate lie?

Trump: I don’t believe it. And I don’t think you believe it either, Wolf. You are a very, very intelligent young man. I don’t think you believe it either.


Trump has every right to change his mind, but he can’t change what he said. And he did say Bush lied.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/yes-trump-said-bush-lied/




[Edited on 3/17/2016 by gondicar]


Muleman1994 - 3/17/2016 at 09:31 PM

Voters are dumping the Democratic Party in massive numbers. The DNC and their lapdogs in the liberal media are freaking out:

Democrats beware: Donald Trump is finding success well outside the Republican fringe

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0316-mcmanus-trump-rubio-florida -20160316-column.html


gondicar - 3/17/2016 at 09:39 PM

On thing is for sure, Trump is proving that there are a lot of low info voters out there (as the article mule just posted points out).


2112 - 3/17/2016 at 09:43 PM

quote:
Voters are dumping the Democratic Party in massive numbers. The DNC and their lapdogs in the liberal media are freaking out:

Democrats beware: Donald Trump is finding success well outside the Republican fringe

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0316-mcmanus-trump-rubio-florida -20160316-column.html



Yet Trump is behind Clinton in every single poll, even the ones by the right-wing polling organizations. Trump is a gift to the Democratic party. He will hand the presidency to Clinton, give the Democrats something to rally around, and will end up fracturing the Republican party.


Muleman1994 - 3/17/2016 at 10:02 PM

quote:
quote:
Voters are dumping the Democratic Party in massive numbers. The DNC and their lapdogs in the liberal media are freaking out:

Democrats beware: Donald Trump is finding success well outside the Republican fringe

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0316-mcmanus-trump-rubio-florida -20160316-column.html



Yet Trump is behind Clinton in every single poll, even the ones by the right-wing polling organizations. Trump is a gift to the Democratic party. He will hand the presidency to Clinton, give the Democrats something to rally around, and will end up fracturing the Republican party.

________________________________________________________________________

There are no creditable national polls at this point in the election cycle so your assumption is crap.

"fracturing the Republican party" - just more left-wing crap.
Voting is up 67% on the Republican primaries and most of those votes are going to Donald trump.

Ha ha.



2112 - 3/17/2016 at 10:14 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Voters are dumping the Democratic Party in massive numbers. The DNC and their lapdogs in the liberal media are freaking out:

Democrats beware: Donald Trump is finding success well outside the Republican fringe

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0316-mcmanus-trump-rubio-florida -20160316-column.html



Yet Trump is behind Clinton in every single poll, even the ones by the right-wing polling organizations. Trump is a gift to the Democratic party. He will hand the presidency to Clinton, give the Democrats something to rally around, and will end up fracturing the Republican party.

________________________________________________________________________

There are no creditable national polls at this point in the election cycle so your assumption is crap.

"fracturing the Republican party" - just more left-wing crap.
Voting is up 67% on the Republican primaries and most of those votes are going to Donald trump.

Ha ha.





Trump hasn't gotten 50% of the vote in a single state. That means that not even half of the voters in his own party like him. Sorry, he's not going to win.

Headlines on the Foxnews.com website - Republicans taking sides amid specter of third party talk. Lots of articles on Fox News website about contested convention. Despite what you stated, I have seen nothing indicating any Democrat freaking out. It is only the Republicans freaking out and desperately finding a way to save this election in November. The Republicans no longer know who they are. Are they the traditional republicans? Are they the tea party? Are they the Christian values voters? Or are they the angry Trump voters that are voting for Trump because they are angry and no other reason? These are all different Republicans, and there isn't a single Republican candidate that will attract all of them. The Republicans may be turning up in the primaries trying beyond hope that their vision of the Republican party will win, mostly because they won't be able to support the other visions of their party. This is why the turnout in the primaries doesn't matter.

[Edited on 3/17/2016 by 2112]


Muleman1994 - 3/17/2016 at 11:05 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Voters are dumping the Democratic Party in massive numbers. The DNC and their lapdogs in the liberal media are freaking out:

Democrats beware: Donald Trump is finding success well outside the Republican fringe

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0316-mcmanus-trump-rubio-florida -20160316-column.html



Yet Trump is behind Clinton in every single poll, even the ones by the right-wing polling organizations. Trump is a gift to the Democratic party. He will hand the presidency to Clinton, give the Democrats something to rally around, and will end up fracturing the Republican party.

________________________________________________________________________

There are no creditable national polls at this point in the election cycle so your assumption is crap.

"fracturing the Republican party" - just more left-wing crap.
Voting is up 67% on the Republican primaries and most of those votes are going to Donald trump.

Ha ha.





Trump hasn't gotten 50% of the vote in a single state. That means that not even half of the voters in his own party like him. Sorry, he's not going to win.

Headlines on the Foxnews.com website - Republicans taking sides amid specter of third party talk. Lots of articles on Fox News website about contested convention. Despite what you stated, I have seen nothing indicating any Democrat freaking out. It is only the Republicans freaking out and desperately finding a way to save this election in November. The Republicans no longer know who they are. Are they the traditional republicans? Are they the tea party? Are they the Christian values voters? Or are they the angry Trump voters that are voting for Trump because they are angry and no other reason? These are all different Republicans, and there isn't a single Republican candidate that will attract all of them. The Republicans may be turning up in the primaries trying beyond hope that their vision of the Republican party will win, mostly because they won't be able to support the other visions of their party. This is why the turnout in the primaries doesn't matter.

[Edited on 3/17/2016 by 2112]

____________________________________________________________________

"Trump hasn't gotten 50% of the vote in a single state. That means that not even half of the voters in his own party like him"

A nonsense statement. When you have many candidates the votes get spread out but as they have dropped out Trumps take of the votes has steadily climbed.



jkeller - 3/17/2016 at 11:10 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Voters are dumping the Democratic Party in massive numbers. The DNC and their lapdogs in the liberal media are freaking out:

Democrats beware: Donald Trump is finding success well outside the Republican fringe

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0316-mcmanus-trump-rubio-florida -20160316-column.html



Yet Trump is behind Clinton in every single poll, even the ones by the right-wing polling organizations. Trump is a gift to the Democratic party. He will hand the presidency to Clinton, give the Democrats something to rally around, and will end up fracturing the Republican party.

________________________________________________________________________

There are no creditable national polls at this point in the election cycle so your assumption is crap.

"fracturing the Republican party" - just more left-wing crap.
Voting is up 67% on the Republican primaries and most of those votes are going to Donald trump.

Ha ha.





Trump hasn't gotten 50% of the vote in a single state. That means that not even half of the voters in his own party like him. Sorry, he's not going to win.

Headlines on the Foxnews.com website - Republicans taking sides amid specter of third party talk. Lots of articles on Fox News website about contested convention. Despite what you stated, I have seen nothing indicating any Democrat freaking out. It is only the Republicans freaking out and desperately finding a way to save this election in November. The Republicans no longer know who they are. Are they the traditional republicans? Are they the tea party? Are they the Christian values voters? Or are they the angry Trump voters that are voting for Trump because they are angry and no other reason? These are all different Republicans, and there isn't a single Republican candidate that will attract all of them. The Republicans may be turning up in the primaries trying beyond hope that their vision of the Republican party will win, mostly because they won't be able to support the other visions of their party. This is why the turnout in the primaries doesn't matter.

[Edited on 3/17/2016 by 2112]

____________________________________________________________________

"Trump hasn't gotten 50% of the vote in a single state. That means that not even half of the voters in his own party like him"

A nonsense statement. When you have many candidates the votes get spread out but as they have dropped out Trumps take of the votes has steadily climbed.





Maybe, but the fact that he hasn't gotten 50% of the vote in any primary. And with the HUUUUUUGE turnout that you love to talk about, there are a lot of voters who voted against him.


nebish - 3/18/2016 at 01:46 AM

quote:
Or are they the angry Trump voters that are voting for Trump because they are angry and no other reason?


Are you angry? Shouldn't we all be angry?

I'm angry about interventionist conflicts and regime change policy around the world by Republican and Democrat administrations. Is Hillary going to change that? I'm angry that foreign countries and corporations are getting rich off our market at the expense of the US worker. Is Hillary going to change that?

Seems that Americans can be angry without having to identify with being a D or an R and establishment candidates, be it Clinton or Kasich are just going to bring us more of the same.

By the way, Thom Hartman says be careful what you wish for as he remembers back to 1980 and thinking that Regan was a gift for the Democrat party. Elections can be unpredictable.


alloak41 - 3/18/2016 at 03:16 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Voters are dumping the Democratic Party in massive numbers. The DNC and their lapdogs in the liberal media are freaking out:

Democrats beware: Donald Trump is finding success well outside the Republican fringe

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0316-mcmanus-trump-rubio-florida -20160316-column.html



Yet Trump is behind Clinton in every single poll, even the ones by the right-wing polling organizations. Trump is a gift to the Democratic party. He will hand the presidency to Clinton, give the Democrats something to rally around, and will end up fracturing the Republican party.

________________________________________________________________________

There are no creditable national polls at this point in the election cycle so your assumption is crap.

"fracturing the Republican party" - just more left-wing crap.
Voting is up 67% on the Republican primaries and most of those votes are going to Donald trump.

Ha ha.





Trump hasn't gotten 50% of the vote in a single state. That means that not even half of the voters in his own party like him. Sorry, he's not going to win.

Headlines on the Foxnews.com website - Republicans taking sides amid specter of third party talk. Lots of articles on Fox News website about contested convention. Despite what you stated, I have seen nothing indicating any Democrat freaking out. It is only the Republicans freaking out and desperately finding a way to save this election in November. The Republicans no longer know who they are. Are they the traditional republicans? Are they the tea party? Are they the Christian values voters? Or are they the angry Trump voters that are voting for Trump because they are angry and no other reason? These are all different Republicans, and there isn't a single Republican candidate that will attract all of them. The Republicans may be turning up in the primaries trying beyond hope that their vision of the Republican party will win, mostly because they won't be able to support the other visions of their party. This is why the turnout in the primaries doesn't matter.

[Edited on 3/17/2016 by 2112]

____________________________________________________________________

"Trump hasn't gotten 50% of the vote in a single state. That means that not even half of the voters in his own party like him"

A nonsense statement. When you have many candidates the votes get spread out but as they have dropped out Trumps take of the votes has steadily climbed.





Maybe, but the fact that he hasn't gotten 50% of the vote in any primary. And with the HUUUUUUGE turnout that you love to talk about, there are a lot of voters who voted against him.


I voted for Cruz in the primary so Hillary will get my vote in November. Want to buy some swampland?


gina - 3/21/2016 at 11:40 PM

quote:
quote:
Or are they the angry Trump voters that are voting for Trump because they are angry and no other reason?


Are you angry? Shouldn't we all be angry?

I'm angry about interventionist conflicts and regime change policy around the world by Republican and Democrat administrations. Is Hillary going to change that? I'm angry that foreign countries and corporations are getting rich off our market at the expense of the US worker. Is Hillary going to change that?

Seems that Americans can be angry without having to identify with being a D or an R and establishment candidates, be it Clinton or Kasich are just going to bring us more of the same.

By the way, Thom Hartman says be careful what you wish for as he remembers back to 1980 and thinking that Regan was a gift for the Democrat party. Elections can be unpredictable.




Trump is the only candidate who does not want us involved in the affairs of the Middle East the way we have been under the former regimes. Hillary is a veteran of the network of nationbuilders. That's what they believe they are doing, helping to build nations and bring them up to a better standard of living. Opponents will tell you, they do not want outsiders coming there toppling their regimes and installing "puppet governments", yet Hillary and Cruz and all the rest of them will tell you we need our "allied partners" which is politico speak for foreign allied nations. Trump is opposed to continue this 'nation building' policy.

On one issue they are right. Saudi has kept the price of oil reasonable. Our prices going up recently is because the US cut it's own output resulting in us being hosed at the pump. Then tell you that they will try to lessen and end our dependence on foreign oil, but it's NOT THE SAUDIS who are screwing us. We are being screwed by our own country. Like back in the days when Exxon made 400% profit and we paid $3.47 at the pump and they just blamed the Saudis.

The deal has been we help provide military support to keep their regime in power and stable and they trade in petrodollars (US dollars), selling oil in US dollars to help our economy and they sell us oil at reasonable prices.

Trumps opponents are worried about what will happen with the world financial system if he assumes power. It is all interconnected with the oil and trade deals. Even the Iranians know this, but they are more focused on Israel and their hatred of them.

"Because he is a threat to the satanic Zionist conspiracy, he is also endangered as was JFK,” said Steven D. Kelley, a former CIA and NSA contractor."JFK directly attacked the CIA, the Federal Reserve (US central bank) and Israel’s nuclear program; this is why he was assassinated,” Kelley told Press TV on Monday."

NOTE: The people of Israel have a right to exist, but the things their govt. has been doing show what their intent is, which is to deny the Palestinians the right to exist. Both sides are saying the other should not exist, and if you go back in the Bible it tells you of this problem thousands of years ago and how it was solved then. God did not want two states, he wanted one where they all lived in peace. He specifically says the land will never be divided again, or be two separate states. yet mankind chooses to ignore what was handed down, including denying ancestral lands to the original tribes people, like the Afghans who before they were Afghans were from the tribes of Benjamin and Bani Israel before they migrated.

JFK was going to get rid of the Federal Reserve Bank and announce it to the American people, two weeks before be was able to do that, he was assassinated. That is how big business and big government handle anyone challenging their status, position and wealth. Trump must have brass cajones to think he can change it.

http://presstv.ir/Detail/2016/03/21/456910/Steven-D-Kelley







[Edited on 3/21/2016 by gina]


bob1954 - 3/21/2016 at 11:51 PM

quote:
Trump is the only candidate who does not want us involved in the affairs of the Middle East the way we have been under the former regimes.

Two things wrong here: 1) you are forgetting about Bernie, and 2) in this country we refer to them as administrations, not regimes.


BoytonBrother - 3/23/2016 at 10:46 PM

Question for the Trump supporters regarding his position on illegal Mexican immigration: Rather than build the wall, would you support a cheaper solution that I imagine would have a greater effect - to simply hold American business owners accountable for their contributions to this problem? If they simply did not hire undocumented workers, then it might reduce their motivation for coming. They all risk their lives crossing the desert because they know they can find work. His rhetoric to put all the blame on the illegals might feel good, but it doesn't address the real problem, nor create a solution. For every one of those millions of illegals mooching of our country and not paying taxes, there is also an American business owner enabling it all.

I still can't fathom how simple-minded his supporters are. They are going to give their vote to a guy only because he makes them feel good, even though they might realize he won't be able to achieve any of what he is saying. They know he won't be able to do it, but they want to reward him just for saying what they want to say, but can't. Amazing.

[Edited on 3/23/2016 by BoytonBrother]


gina - 3/23/2016 at 10:59 PM

quote:
quote:
Trump is the only candidate who does not want us involved in the affairs of the Middle East the way we have been under the former regimes.

Two things wrong here: 1) you are forgetting about Bernie, and 2) in this country we refer to them as administrations, not regimes.


Bernie cannot win against Clinton. She has more money, she sounds very credible, knowledgeable and compassionate and experienced. What is the difference between regime or administration? Do you still think we have any rights when laws are passed that violate our Constitution and they are implemented.


gina - 3/23/2016 at 11:03 PM

quote:
Question for the Trump supporters regarding his position on illegal Mexican immigration: Rather than build the wall, would you support a cheaper solution that I imagine would have a greater effect - to simply hold American business owners accountable for their contributions to this problem? If they simply did not hire undocumented workers, then it might reduce their motivation for coming. They all risk their lives crossing the desert because they know they can find work. His rhetoric to put all the blame on the illegals might feel good, but it doesn't address the real problem, nor create a solution. For every one of those millions of illegals mooching of our country and not paying taxes, there is also an American business owner enabling it all.

I still can't fathom how simple-minded his supporters are. They are going to give their vote to a guy only because he makes them feel good, even though they might realize he won't be able to achieve any of what he is saying. They know he won't be able to do it, but they want to reward him just for saying what they want to say, but can't. Amazing.

[Edited on 3/23/2016 by BoytonBrother]


You have a good point that employers who hire illegals should be penalized, but greed being what it is, they can probably just bribe people so that they are not prosecuted. Bribes are done in many ways, contribute to a politicians campaign re-election fund etc. etc. Yes they are enablers, they have no intention to stop, they will just find ways around it.

If we build the wall, that will stop a large portion of it. As for costs, I think unemployed veterans etc. would volunteer to help build it if there were no funds to to do it, but Trump said he will put import taxes on products coming thru the border to finance it. He is a businessman, he will get it done.


MartinD28 - 3/24/2016 at 12:09 AM

quote:
Question for the Trump supporters regarding his position on illegal Mexican immigration: Rather than build the wall, would you support a cheaper solution that I imagine would have a greater effect - to simply hold American business owners accountable for their contributions to this problem? If they simply did not hire undocumented workers, then it might reduce their motivation for coming. They all risk their lives crossing the desert because they know they can find work. His rhetoric to put all the blame on the illegals might feel good, but it doesn't address the real problem, nor create a solution. For every one of those millions of illegals mooching of our country and not paying taxes, there is also an American business owner enabling it all.

I still can't fathom how simple-minded his supporters are. They are going to give their vote to a guy only because he makes them feel good, even though they might realize he won't be able to achieve any of what he is saying. They know he won't be able to do it, but they want to reward him just for saying what they want to say, but can't. Amazing.

[Edited on 3/23/2016 by BoytonBrother]


In your last paragraph you state, "They know he won't be able to do it, but they want to reward him just for saying what they want to say, but can't. Amazing. "

Point - You may be giving them more credit than is due. I've seen Trump supporters interviewed, and if one listens to them talk, you get the sense that they believe whatever drivel comes out of his foul mouth...no matter how ridiculous and far-fetched his statements & ideas are.


nebish - 3/24/2016 at 02:21 AM

quote:
Question for the Trump supporters regarding his position on illegal Mexican immigration: Rather than build the wall, would you support a cheaper solution that I imagine would have a greater effect - to simply hold American business owners accountable for their contributions to this problem? If they simply did not hire undocumented workers, then it might reduce their motivation for coming. They all risk their lives crossing the desert because they know they can find work. His rhetoric to put all the blame on the illegals might feel good, but it doesn't address the real problem, nor create a solution. For every one of those millions of illegals mooching of our country and not paying taxes, there is also an American business owner enabling it all.

I still can't fathom how simple-minded his supporters are. They are going to give their vote to a guy only because he makes them feel good, even though they might realize he won't be able to achieve any of what he is saying. They know he won't be able to do it, but they want to reward him just for saying what they want to say, but can't. Amazing.

[Edited on 3/23/2016 by BoytonBrother]


Whether or not I support Trump is yet to be determined. What you think of me if I do makes no difference.

I would support the strongest penalties possible for employers that hire illegal immigrants, even jail.

I agree, dry up the work that people come for. There should be a continued guest worker program, I do believe there are reasonable voices stating the necessity of such. But businesses hiring illegal immigrants without a guest worker visa should must certainly be punished. We have to also then make sure they have the proper tools to property check the employment applicants. Make that be e-verify? Groups on both sides of the aisle do not want e-verify to be mandated on employers. I'm fine with making e-verify the law of the land. If somebody is hired due to an error in the e-verify system then that employer should not suffer any consequences.

The wall will help. Alot of illegal immigrants are visa overstays. And ofcourse there are tunnels and people are smuggled in, and The wall along the entire stretch should be built. If it makes it more difficult for illegal immigrants to come here then it will have some impact. If it slows people trying to get across then hopefully more will be caught (and not released).

Some of them mooch off the system. Some do pay taxes, if having a false social security numbers, they actually pay into social security and federal witholdings taxes. And ofcourse they pay sales taxes on things they buy. Many are paid under the table of course. I believe the burden on the nation is greater than the minimal taxes they might pay. And if there are jobs that Americans will not do, beyond the impact of a reasonable and orderly guest worker program, than the wages for those jobs will have to increase to attract Americans to do the work. Perhaps instead of paying Americans not to work on welfare programs, that money can be used to pay for transportation or temporary relocation program where people who can't find work can be more easily placed near employers that need workers.

[Edited on 3/24/2016 by nebish]


alloak41 - 3/24/2016 at 02:42 AM

Trump is not anti-America, that alone will be an improvement.


gondicar - 3/24/2016 at 11:58 AM

quote:
Trump is not anti-America, that alone will be an improvement.

Trump is the most anti-American candidate in the race and he doesn't even know it, and neither do most of his followers.




[Edited on 3/24/2016 by gondicar]


bob1954 - 3/24/2016 at 02:26 PM

quote:
quote:
Trump is not anti-America, that alone will be an improvement.

Trump is the most anti-American candidate in the race and he doesn't even know it, and neither do most of his followers.

That is exactly right. He wants to limit access to our country based on religion. He wants to change libel laws to roll back freedom of the press. How is any of that in line with American values? He leads, not by establishing a clear vision and setting a path to achieve that vision, but by appealing to impulsive emotions of feckless followers. If Trump represents America then American has lost her soul.


Swifty - 3/24/2016 at 03:42 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Trump is not anti-America, that alone will be an improvement.

Trump is the most anti-American candidate in the race and he doesn't even know it, and neither do most of his followers.

That is exactly right. He wants to limit access to our country based on religion. He wants to change libel laws to roll back freedom of the press. How is any of that in line with American values? He leads, not by establishing a clear vision and setting a path to achieve that vision, but by appealing to impulsive emotions of feckless followers. If Trump represents America then American has lost her soul.

It's probably not accurate (or nice) to call Trump's followers feckless and impulsive. Trump's been out there doing his thing forever now. Most people know exactly what and who they are voting for. It may not be your version of America, but for people like alloak41 and muleman Donald Trump is exactly what this country needs. Obama bad, Donald Trump good.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/270156-sc-exit-poll- 75-percent-agree-with-trumps-muslim-ban

The proof is in the polling.


Actually Obama is not on the ticket and in national polls both Clinton and Sanders beat Trump. You cited a poll of Republicans in South Carolina and 75% agree with Trump's muslim ban. This 75% would also probably agree that bringing back slavery is a good idea and so the proof that these people are hardly enlightened has been in the pudding for a long time. Lucky for us that this version of America will never reach fruition.


gondicar - 3/24/2016 at 03:46 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Trump is not anti-America, that alone will be an improvement.

Trump is the most anti-American candidate in the race and he doesn't even know it, and neither do most of his followers.

That is exactly right. He wants to limit access to our country based on religion. He wants to change libel laws to roll back freedom of the press. How is any of that in line with American values? He leads, not by establishing a clear vision and setting a path to achieve that vision, but by appealing to impulsive emotions of feckless followers. If Trump represents America then American has lost her soul.

It's probably not accurate (or nice) to call Trump's followers feckless and impulsive. Trump's been out there doing his thing forever now. Most people know exactly what and who they are voting for. It may not be your version of America, but for people like alloak41 and muleman Donald Trump is exactly what this country needs. Obama bad, Donald Trump good.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/270156-sc-exit-poll- 75-percent-agree-with-trumps-muslim-ban

The proof is in the polling.

Speaking of polling, FOX News poll out yesterday shows Trump loses to Hillary while Kasich and and Cruz both beat her, yet Trump is still the GOP front runner. Go figure.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/23/fox-news-poll-cruz-kasich-ahead- clinton-in-2016-hypothetical-matchups.html



BoytonBrother - 3/24/2016 at 07:43 PM

The more I think about it, Trump is definitely a jerk, but I think he is too smart to actually believe what he is saying. My problem isn't with him...it's the gullible and dysfunctional people who support him that is the scary part in all this.


BIGV - 3/24/2016 at 08:09 PM

quote:
The more I think about it, Trump is definitely a jerk, but I think he is too smart to actually believe what he is saying. My problem isn't with him...it's the gullible and dysfunctional people who support him that is the scary part in all this.


That is an awfully large number of "dysfunctional" people and I would make the same argument on the other side....Bernie is reasonable and seems legit; the amount of people supporting Hillary seems to speak to the exact same "dysfunction"....all because her last name is Clinton. Is this not how G.W. Bush won twice?

The dumbing down rolls on.

Lord help us.


Bhawk - 3/24/2016 at 08:29 PM

No comments about Trump vs. Cruz, Battle of the Wives?


pops42 - 3/24/2016 at 08:49 PM

quote:
quote:
The more I think about it, Trump is definitely a jerk, but I think he is too smart to actually believe what he is saying. My problem isn't with him...it's the gullible and dysfunctional people who support him that is the scary part in all this.


That is an awfully large number of "dysfunctional" people and I would make the same argument on the other side....Bernie is reasonable and seems legit; the amount of people supporting Hillary seems to speak to the exact same "dysfunction"....all because her last name is Clinton. Is this not how G.W. Bush won twice?

The dumbing down rolls on.

Lord help us.
It seems you are the one dumbing things down BIG V "people are supporting her because her name is clinton" come on! say what you will, but she's the most qualified for the job.


bob1954 - 3/24/2016 at 09:10 PM

quote:
It's probably not accurate (or nice) to call Trump's followers feckless and impulsive.

I'll admit to the 'not nice' part but I think it is accurate, at least according to my observations. And since when did being nice become a requirement in WP political discussions?


MartinD28 - 3/24/2016 at 09:26 PM

quote:
quote:
The more I think about it, Trump is definitely a jerk, but I think he is too smart to actually believe what he is saying. My problem isn't with him...it's the gullible and dysfunctional people who support him that is the scary part in all this.


That is an awfully large number of "dysfunctional" people and I would make the same argument on the other side....Bernie is reasonable and seems legit; the amount of people supporting Hillary seems to speak to the exact same "dysfunction"....all because her last name is Clinton. Is this not how G.W. Bush won twice?

The dumbing down rolls on.

Lord help us.


Will you support your premise from the policy standpoint? Details?


MartinD28 - 3/24/2016 at 09:29 PM

quote:
No comments about Trump vs. Cruz, Battle of the Wives?


Yes...stay tuned.

Will probably show up on WWE Monday Night Raw since Trump is buds with Vince McMahon.


gondicar - 3/24/2016 at 10:22 PM

quote:
quote:
No comments about Trump vs. Cruz, Battle of the Wives?


Yes...stay tuned.

Will probably show up on WWE Monday Night Raw since Trump is buds with Vince McMahon.

It's disgusting, and as an American it is embarrassing as the world looks on in disbelief.


BoytonBrother - 3/24/2016 at 10:54 PM

As for the wife battle, it's a brilliant, yet classless, move on his part. If he is just making it all up, he wins because he plants the idea in his supporters' minds that there is something illegal/immoral in her past. And when he later states, "I'm not going to cross the line and reveal it", he creates a false sense of self-control that was never there in the first place.


MartinD28 - 3/24/2016 at 11:26 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
No comments about Trump vs. Cruz, Battle of the Wives?


Yes...stay tuned.

Will probably show up on WWE Monday Night Raw since Trump is buds with Vince McMahon.

It's disgusting, and as an American it is embarrassing as the world looks on in disbelief.


Just shows how low Trump will go. Not too distant from his comments & attacks on Megyn Kelly. Nothing for him is off limits. Has nothing to do with policy, but since Trump really has little in the way of policies, this is typical of his strategy / shtick.

And make no mistake about it. Cruz is buying in & playing the game with Trump. Just listen to Ted's retorts. He's using all the TV time he can to play to his base and eat into Trumps.

The move & countermove are both calculated. The whole thing is disgusting. This is your GOP at work...be proud.


heineken515 - 3/25/2016 at 01:36 PM

quote:
No comments about Trump vs. Cruz, Battle of the Wives?


Whack the bee hive much there hawk ?

Why not tell us what you think ?


Swifty - 3/25/2016 at 03:07 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
No comments about Trump vs. Cruz, Battle of the Wives?


Yes...stay tuned.

Will probably show up on WWE Monday Night Raw since Trump is buds with Vince McMahon.

It's disgusting, and as an American it is embarrassing as the world looks on in disbelief.


Just shows how low Trump will go. Not too distant from his comments & attacks on Megyn Kelly. Nothing for him is off limits. Has nothing to do with policy, but since Trump really has little in the way of policies, this is typical of his strategy / shtick.

And make no mistake about it. Cruz is buying in & playing the game with Trump. Just listen to Ted's retorts. He's using all the TV time he can to play to his base and eat into Trumps.

The move & countermove are both calculated. The whole thing is disgusting. This is your GOP at work...be proud.


I am not sure Cruz is an equal partner in all this. When Trump distracts Cruz or any of them with this kind of nonsense he always seems to come out ahead.


Bhawk - 3/25/2016 at 03:30 PM

quote:
quote:
No comments about Trump vs. Cruz, Battle of the Wives?


Whack the bee hive much there hawk ?

Why not tell us what you think ?


I think it's a pathetic example of what the political arena has become. And, after years of hearing how men like Clinton or Obama have "denigrated the office" by appearing on TV shows, making a joke about this or that, mentioning things they shouldn't, etc...I, quite frankly, will never take any Republican seriously on the issue of the presumed expectations of Executive decorum ever again. Ever.

I also think it's quite hilarious that the "get off my lawn" crowd finds so much entertainment and inspiration from candidates in twitter battles over internet memes.

But what really stands out to me is that there seems to be this large number of moderate Republicans that somehow all of the sudden are acting like they have no idea how Trump happened. All of the sudden there's this angry, seething mass and the moderates have no idea who these people are.

At any rate, what they do know is that no matter how angry or unruly the seething mass is, they are all united in their deep dislike of anything considered even slightly left...so when someone they consider on that left even makes even the smallest of observations, they react and pounce defensively.

So there you go, pal. What do you think?


Bhawk - 3/25/2016 at 03:38 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
No comments about Trump vs. Cruz, Battle of the Wives?


Yes...stay tuned.

Will probably show up on WWE Monday Night Raw since Trump is buds with Vince McMahon.

It's disgusting, and as an American it is embarrassing as the world looks on in disbelief.


Just shows how low Trump will go. Not too distant from his comments & attacks on Megyn Kelly. Nothing for him is off limits. Has nothing to do with policy, but since Trump really has little in the way of policies, this is typical of his strategy / shtick.

And make no mistake about it. Cruz is buying in & playing the game with Trump. Just listen to Ted's retorts. He's using all the TV time he can to play to his base and eat into Trumps.

The move & countermove are both calculated. The whole thing is disgusting. This is your GOP at work...be proud.


Is it really that deep? I'm seeing a classic narcissist being entertained in the most fulfilling way any narcissist could possibly dream of. Trump says whatever he wants and it doesn't matter to the people that support him, and he knows it.

Looks to me like he's having a blast doing it. He's so far out of whack with the traditions of presidential campaigns that it's inspired some solid emotions and reactions:

-"He's not a politician, he tells it like it is (i.e., what I wanna hear), he's a business genius, he'll Make America Great Again!"
-"What a joke this guy is...but this isn't serious. He'll bail out at some point, ridiculousness like this can't last."
-"SECOND COMING OF HITLER!!!!!!!"

Then there's the bazillions of dollars in free pub the media has been handing him every minute. That plays in too.


gondicar - 3/25/2016 at 04:57 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
No comments about Trump vs. Cruz, Battle of the Wives?


Whack the bee hive much there hawk ?

Why not tell us what you think ?


I think it's a pathetic example of what the political arena has become. And, after years of hearing how men like Clinton or Obama have "denigrated the office" by appearing on TV shows, making a joke about this or that, mentioning things they shouldn't, etc...I, quite frankly, will never take any Republican seriously on the issue of the presumed expectations of Executive decorum ever again. Ever.

I also think it's quite hilarious that the "get off my lawn" crowd finds so much entertainment and inspiration from candidates in twitter battles over internet memes.

But what really stands out to me is that there seems to be this large number of moderate Republicans that somehow all of the sudden are acting like they have no idea how Trump happened. All of the sudden there's this angry, seething mass and the moderates have no idea who these people are.

At any rate, what they do know is that no matter how angry or unruly the seething mass is, they are all united in their deep dislike of anything considered even slightly left...so when someone they consider on that left even makes even the smallest of observations, they react and pounce defensively.

So there you go, pal. What do you think?

Nailed it.


heineken515 - 3/25/2016 at 05:01 PM

quote:
So there you go, pal. What do you think?


Well, Trump should have checked to see that it actually wasn't Cruz directly that he was responding to.

Yes, what gets lost is that Trump didn't start this little bicker, he was simply responding to an ad about his own wife, much like the dick joke at the debate.

Nonetheless, it doesn't make it right.

But let's face it, if Trump called whatever super pac that did put out the thing on his wife first, and said, "stop it," they wouldn't.

So Cruz should be the one to call said super pac and tell them to stop it, if he feels so passionate about it as we are led to believe by his retort.

I do not feel this level of dirty tactics is good by any means. What I feel has no bearing on what they will do.

I do think it is obvious or it should be by now, Trump can say and do whatever he wants and it won't sway his supporters.

I think Trump probably has tons and tons of "dirt" just laying in wait, to use if need be.


gondicar - 3/25/2016 at 05:26 PM

quote:
Yes, what gets lost is that Trump didn't start this little bicker, he was simply responding to an ad about his own wife, much like the dick joke at the debate.

Maybe the reason it "gets lost" is because of this:
quote:
Nonetheless, it doesn't make it right.



heineken515 - 3/25/2016 at 05:28 PM

Maybe, but I don't think so.


heineken515 - 3/25/2016 at 05:35 PM

And Bhawk - which is worse :

-a sitting President getting a blowjob in the Oval Office or
-a candidate saying tacky stuff ?


bob1954 - 3/25/2016 at 06:03 PM

quote:
And Bhawk - which is worse :

-a sitting President getting a blowjob in the Oval Office or
-a candidate saying tacky stuff ?

You didn't ask me but it's a public forum so I'll chime in. Both represent unacceptable behavior for a candidate or office holder. It would be wrong to use one to try to justify the other.


MartinD28 - 3/25/2016 at 06:25 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
No comments about Trump vs. Cruz, Battle of the Wives?


Yes...stay tuned.

Will probably show up on WWE Monday Night Raw since Trump is buds with Vince McMahon.

It's disgusting, and as an American it is embarrassing as the world looks on in disbelief.


Just shows how low Trump will go. Not too distant from his comments & attacks on Megyn Kelly. Nothing for him is off limits. Has nothing to do with policy, but since Trump really has little in the way of policies, this is typical of his strategy / shtick.

And make no mistake about it. Cruz is buying in & playing the game with Trump. Just listen to Ted's retorts. He's using all the TV time he can to play to his base and eat into Trumps.

The move & countermove are both calculated. The whole thing is disgusting. This is your GOP at work...be proud.


I am not sure Cruz is an equal partner in all this. When Trump distracts Cruz or any of them with this kind of nonsense he always seems to come out ahead.


You are correct. Just to clarify - I didn't imply that Cruz is an equal partner. Fact is no one will ever be an equal partner in Trump's never ending mind games & strategies. What I was attempting to say was that Cruz used the opportunity to do battle with Trump on this. It was a way of getting more free press and media attention for Cruz in attempts to stand up to Donald & be seen as "strong".

In the end, Cruz was asked if he will support Trump if Trump is the candidate. For the umpteenth time Cruise walked around the issue and never answered the question. I mean...enough is enough with that stupid pledge. How can any of the candidates and former candidates support Trump with everything Trump has said & tweeted. And it's really not about HC or BS here. It's all about Trump.


heineken515 - 3/25/2016 at 06:28 PM

quote:
quote:
And Bhawk - which is worse :

-a sitting President getting a blowjob in the Oval Office or
-a candidate saying tacky stuff ?

You didn't ask me but it's a public forum so I'll chime in. Both represent unacceptable behavior for a candidate or office holder. It would be wrong to use one to try to justify the other.


You know what, forget I asked this question, I don't care.

Yes both are unacceptable.

I should've refrained from typing.

In the Easter spirit, you all have a great weekend !


BillyBlastoff - 3/25/2016 at 06:52 PM

quote:
But let's face it, if Trump called whatever super pac that did put out the thing on his wife first, and said, "stop it," they wouldn't.

So Cruz should be the one to call said super pac and tell them to stop it, if he feels so passionate about it as we are led to believe by his retort.


Neither one of them can "coordinate" with any super pac. It's against the law.


BillyBlastoff - 3/25/2016 at 06:55 PM

quote:
And Bhawk - which is worse :

-a sitting President getting a blowjob in the Oval Office or
-a candidate saying tacky stuff ?


I've just never seen that much wrong with getting a blowjob. Is it just me?

Is it where it happened that makes it so heinous?


bob1954 - 3/25/2016 at 07:14 PM

quote:
quote:
And Bhawk - which is worse :

-a sitting President getting a blowjob in the Oval Office or
-a candidate saying tacky stuff ?


I've just never seen that much wrong with getting a blowjob. Is it just me?

Is it where it happened that makes it so heinous?

Even Clinton knew it was wrong. That's why he lied about it. A book could be written about everything that was wrong with it. There would chapters on infidelity, committing perjury in a sexual harassment lawsuit, national security issues raised by behaving in a way for which you could be blackmailed, lying to staff and supporters, and generally lowering the expectations of behavior for national leaders. Much of the muck in the current election cycle can be traced back to the example set by Bill Clinton.


BillyBlastoff - 3/25/2016 at 07:43 PM

I guess it's just me. I wonder how much extramarital sex Kennedy had in the White House? All of which he could have been blackmailed for.

Humans need sex. I'll never see it as that big of a deal.


MartinD28 - 3/25/2016 at 09:35 PM

quote:
quote:
And Bhawk - which is worse :

-a sitting President getting a blowjob in the Oval Office or
-a candidate saying tacky stuff ?


I've just never seen that much wrong with getting a blowjob. Is it just me?

Is it where it happened that makes it so heinous?


Billy - I'll vote you poster of the day

Does the Rose Garden qualify as a suitable place?


gondicar - 3/27/2016 at 05:39 PM



[Edited on 3/27/2016 by gondicar]


BillyBlastoff - 3/27/2016 at 07:14 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
And Bhawk - which is worse :

-a sitting President getting a blowjob in the Oval Office or
-a candidate saying tacky stuff ?


I've just never seen that much wrong with getting a blowjob. Is it just me?

Is it where it happened that makes it so heinous?


Billy - I'll vote you poster of the day

Does the Rose Garden qualify as a suitable place?


Only if there is a stiff breeze a blowing.


Jerry - 3/28/2016 at 02:00 AM

quote:
I guess it's just me. I wonder how much extramarital sex Kennedy had in the White House? All of which he could have been blackmailed for.

Humans need sex. I'll never see it as that big of a deal.




Who says he wasn't blackmailed about it? Think back of the Mafia connections around him and Bobby's war on organized crime. Why did Bobby all of a sudden move off to new York and run as a Senator?

Warren G. Harding was blackmailed to keep quiet about the daughter he had by his mistress. Well. one of them anyway.


BillyBlastoff - 3/28/2016 at 04:47 AM

quote:
Who says he wasn't blackmailed about it? Think back of the Mafia connections around him and Bobby's war on organized crime. Why did Bobby all of a sudden move off to new York and run as a Senator?

Warren G. Harding was blackmailed to keep quiet about the daughter he had by his mistress. Well. one of them anyway.


You're probably right. Wasn't blackmail Hoover's speciality? Other than evening gown competitions and ballroom dancing with Roy Cohn?

Since this is a Trump thread I wonder about his ties to organized crime. When I worked Trump Park the Donald was fixing Wohlman rink. I'd see him several times a week. He would often meet people on the construction site. I've seen him meeting with Ed Koch, then later with John Gotti. Once with both Mayor Koch and John Gotti. I wonder what those guys were talking about.


BIGV - 3/28/2016 at 06:07 AM

quote:



"Politics makes strange bedfellows"~ Charles Dudley Warner

Are not the "ignorant" the principals the Dems have so successfully courted in elections past?



gondicar - 3/28/2016 at 11:38 AM

quote:
quote:



"Politics makes strange bedfellows"~ Charles Dudley Warner

Are not the "ignorant" the principals the Dems have so successfully courted in elections past?

Nice try, but no.


bob1954 - 3/28/2016 at 12:05 PM

The recent terror attacks will undoubtedly shift the conversation more towards foreign policy and the war on terror. I wonder if this will hurt Trump since he has absolutely no knowledge or experience, or if it will help him because he talks tough. Hopefully this won't turn more scared voters into suckers.


sixty8 - 3/28/2016 at 06:27 PM

Trump is mentally challenged when it comes to the issues, especially foreign policy. Any sane American would never vote for such an immature, impulsive, non filtered, know nothing, egotistical, maniac. These Republicans proping up his phony con artist ass will be the ones responsible for electing Clinton or Sanders or whoever runs against this feeble idiot. When they wake up on election day and are forced to watch constant loops of Hilary or Bernie giving their victory speeches they will have nobody else to blame for the shocked expressions on their faces. There is no way Trump gets elected in a general election. I have faith that there are not enough stupid voters in the USA to get this moron elected with all of the idiocy constantly spewed by Trumps flapping lips. He is the biggest phony con man in the history of con men.

[Edited on 3/28/2016 by sixty8]


bob1954 - 3/28/2016 at 07:42 PM

quote:
Trump is mentally challenged when it comes to the issues, especially foreign policy. Any sane American would never vote for such an immature, impulsive, non filtered, know nothing, egotistical, maniac. These Republicans proping up his phony con artist ass will be the ones responsible for electing Clinton or Sanders or whoever runs against this feeble idiot. When they wake up on election day and are forced to watch constant loops of Hilary or Bernie giving their victory speeches they will have nobody else to blame for the shocked expressions on their faces. There is no way Trump gets elected in a general election. I have faith that there are not enough stupid voters in the USA to get this moron elected with all of the idiocy constantly spewed by Trumps flapping lips. He is the biggest phony con man in the history of con men.

So, you are for Trump?

Seriously, I still don't believe he will get the nomination. I am even more convinced of this after watching the discussion of unbound and zombie delegates on Meet The Press yesterday. Here's a clip:

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/zombie-delegates-a-look-at-gop- delegate-math-653113923652

If Trump fails to get the 1,237 prior to the convention he will not be the nominee. But you are right, if he is the nominee the Republicans lose. The Democrats could run Jim Traficant from the grave and Trump would still lose. There is a finite number of people who would vote for Trump and and that number is simply not enough for him to win. Thank God.


gina - 3/31/2016 at 11:26 PM

quote:
Trump is mentally challenged when it comes to the issues, especially foreign policy. Any sane American would never vote for such an immature, impulsive, non filtered, know nothing, egotistical, maniac. These Republicans proping up his phony con artist ass will be the ones responsible for electing Clinton or Sanders or whoever runs against this feeble idiot. When they wake up on election day and are forced to watch constant loops of Hilary or Bernie giving their victory speeches they will have nobody else to blame for the shocked expressions on their faces. There is no way Trump gets elected in a general election. I have faith that there are not enough stupid voters in the USA to get this moron elected with all of the idiocy constantly spewed by Trumps flapping lips. He is the biggest phony con man in the history of con men.

[Edited on 3/28/2016 by sixty8]


We can agree that he has balls, he tells it like it is, does not back down from controversy. He said NATO is obsolete. If you look at how supportive NATO was to the US during the most recent Afghan war (2001 to current), how many countries provided support to the US and how many men did these other countries send there? It was mostly the US fighting. In ANY conflict, these other NATO allied nations provide minimal back up, it is always the US leading the fight, then if something happens (attack) in their countries, they pull their troops back. Trump said maybe some of these other countries need their own nukes and should just manage and defend themselves. I like that idea. Why is it our responsibility to put all these bases in places like Poland etc. to cover the world, let each place have their sovereignty and manage their own affairs.

He was pushed into a question (during the Town Hall with Chris Matthews) of would he use nukes on other countries, including Europe and he said he did not think so, but he would not take anything off the table. He would keep his options open and respond depending on the situation. WHAT if ISIS trounces and takes over European countries, how should they be stopped? Or would it be like Hitler and his great idea? This is a very serious issue for global security.



[Edited on 3/31/2016 by gina]


LeglizHemp - 4/1/2016 at 12:04 AM

I still believe Trump never wanted this to happen. he looked at it as advertising his brand. he thought/thinks at some point i will say something so offensive it will destroy my chances. everything has turned upside down for him. i think he wants out but can not find a way to get out.


gondicar - 4/1/2016 at 01:57 AM

Japan and South Korea hit back at Trump's nuclear comments
By Paula Hancocks, CNN
Updated 6:20 PM ET, Thu March 31, 2016

Seoul (CNN) - Confused, shocked, bewildered. Just a few of the words used in recent days to describe Japan and South Korea's reaction to some of Donald Trump's latest comments about the region.

The front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination stunned two of America's strongest allies with the suggestion that the U.S. military would be withdrawn from their shores, with nuclear weapons replacing them.

There are currently 54,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan and 28,500 in South Korea.

"Japan is better if it protects itself against this maniac of North Korea," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper Tuesday. "We are better off frankly if South Korea is going to start protecting itself ... they have to protect themselves or they have to pay us."

US, South Korea take part in joint military exercise
So high was the level of concern, Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe felt the need to respond publicly, saying, "whoever will become the next president of the United States, the Japan-U.S. alliance is the cornerstone of Japan's diplomacy."

Japan remains the only country to have had nuclear weapons used against it and has had a non-nuclear policy and pacifist constitution since the end of World War II.

Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida added, "It is impossible that Japan will arm itself with nuclear weapons."

North Korea claims to have miniaturized nuclear warheads
South Korea has a small minority who think Trump may have a point and welcome the idea of nuclear weapons.

Academic Cheong Seong-Chang from the non-profit think-tank the Sejong Institute said, "If we have nuclear weapons, we'll be in a much better position to deal with North Korea."

But his feeling is not mainstream.


South Korea 'a money machine'
Government reaction has been more focused on Trump's assertion that South Korea is not paying its way.

Trump told CNN's Wolf Blitzer earlier this year, "South Korea is a money machine but they pay us peanuts ... South Korea should pay us very substantially for protecting them."

Howls of inaccuracy came from the South Korean Foreign Ministry, the U.S. ambassador to South Korea, and even the White House.

Ambassador Mark Lippert said Seoul pays for 55% of all non-personnel costs.

And former U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Christopher Hill was more succinct. He told CNN, "I don't know what he's talking about but clearly neither does he."

Trump unveils foreign policy advisers
Newspaper editorials and experts alike have taken aim at Trump's comments about introducing more nuclear weapons to the Korean peninsula to counter the North Korean threat.

Daniel Pinkston of Troy University said it would play into North Korea's hands.

"The hardliners in Pyongyang would just love such an outcome because if that were to occur, it would completely justify their nuclear status ... and validate Kim Jong Un's policy line as absolutely brilliant and absolutely correct," he said.

Reflecting a growing concern, Pinkston added, "Whether he wins the Republican nomination or not, or whether he is elected president or not, even at this stage, he is already doing damage to the U.S. reputation internationally. And damaging U.S. security interests."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/31/politics/trump-view-from-south-korea-japan/in dex.html


gondicar - 4/1/2016 at 11:36 AM

There is no question that Trump would be a complete and total international "disaster" (to use one of the Donald's favorite words to describe what he thinks about America now). He hasn't been elected anything yet and the US government is already having to clean up after him...


U.S. affirms Japan security backing after Trump nuclear comments
By Nicole Gaouette and Ryan Browne, CNN
Updated 7:51 PM ET, Thu March 31, 2016

Washington (CNN)The U.S. and its closest Asian allies reaffirmed decades of security cooperation Thursday as their cornerstone alliance is being challenged by Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump.

Trump's statements scrapping years of U.S. consensus on nuclear issues have prompted discomfort and disbelief from U.S. officials and experts, while foreign governments have challenged his ideas.

Meeting with leaders of Japan and South Korea ahead of the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, President Barack Obama said that the three Pacific nations aim to "restore a sense of stability and peace to the region."

The meeting looked to reinforce a security alliance that has stabilized Asia for decades and now faces new challenges in an assertive China and increasingly erratic North Korea.

Japan and South Korea hit back at Trump's nuclear comments
More broadly, the White House hopes to further its goal to eliminate -- or at least reduce -- the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons and material. It's a position that Republican and Democratic administrations have held since World War II.

But Trump is ripping up the establishment playbook on foreign policy, just has he has defied the traditional storyline of the presidential campaign, repeatedly breaking rules only to emerge -- so far -- relatively unscathed.
The Republican front-runner has said that he sees nuclear proliferation as the world's biggest challenge, but he's also declared that security agreements in Europe and the Middle East might have to be redrawn. And he's suggested that Japan and South Korea may need to step out from under the U.S. security umbrella and develop their own nuclear arsenal.

"At some point we have to say, you know what, we're better off if Japan protects itself against this maniac in North Korea," Trump told Anderson Cooper at a CNN town hall in Milwaukee on Tuesday. "We're better off, frankly, if South Korea is going to start to protect itself."

Trump's proposals on arming Asia drew censure from the administration, which has made disarmament a legacy issue for the President.

Obama has focused on nuclear dangers since his days as a U.S. senator, writing anti-proliferation legislation with Indiana's Republican Sen. Richard Lugar. His first congressional trip abroad was to inspect nuclear weapons facilities in Eastern Europe and Russia.

"Frankly, it would be catastrophic were the United States to shift its position and indicate that we somehow support proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional countries," Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes said Thursday when asked about Trump's outlook.

"The entire premise of American foreign policy as it relates to nuclear weapons for the last 70 years has been focused on preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional states," Rhodes said. "That's been the position of bipartisan administrations, everybody who's occupied the Oval Office."

Japanese and U.S. officials said Trump's suggestion didn't come up in the meeting between South Korean President Park Geun-hye, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Obama, but Japanese leaders have addressed it publicly.

Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe responded after the Republican candidate's comments Tuesday by saying, "whoever will become the next president of the United States, the Japan-U.S. alliance is the cornerstone of Japan's diplomacy."

Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida said more bluntly, "It is impossible that Japan will arm itself with nuclear weapons."

Analysts say Trump's proposal to have South Korea or Japan embrace nuclear weapons is so unrealistic that it won't even merit discussion around water coolers at the nuclear summit.

"I don't think there'll be a discussion among the leaders or even a hallway conversation," said Victor Cha, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who was President George W. Bush's top advisor on North Korea.

"If so," Cha added, "only in jest, as people are going to refill their coffee cups."

Trump's proposal would diverge from the region's history, particularly in Japan.

The only country to have been struck by nuclear bombs, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan has a vociferous anti-nuclear constituency. And while its military is beginning to take on a more assertive posture, most experts say the scars of Japanese aggression during World War II mean the country and the region feel more comfortable with Tokyo working under the broader U.S. security umbrella.

Trump has also suggested redrawing U.S. security relationships in other regions, arguing that Germany and Saudi Arabia need to do more in their own defense or shell out bigger payments to the U.S. for the protection it provides.

"They have to protect themselves or they have to pay us," Trump said in Milwaukee.

One Western diplomat who is watching the presidential race closely said the working theory is that Trump is negotiating and that, as in all negotiations, he is starting at the most extreme positions and would slowly work his way closer to the center once the general election campaign starts.

This diplomat, who spoke anonymously to discuss U.S. politics, said another theory is that if Trump does become the Republican nominee, experts who are advising his competitors will eventually start helping the real estate magnate.

Trump trampled on yet another foreign policy axiom on Wednesday, when he refused to rule out using nuclear weapons to put a swift and definitive end to the threat of ISIS.

"I would never take any of my cards off the table," Trump told an MSNBC Town Hall.

Asked by CNN whether any coalition members had suggested using nuclear weapons against ISIS, Major Gen. Doug Chalmers, a British deputy commander with the coalition, acknowledged surprise.

"I have never heard (it) discussed amongst any of our coalition members at any stage," he said. "Actually, I have to admit, that one has taken me completely by surprise. The simple answer is no."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/31/politics/nuclear-summit-trump-japan-south-ame rica/index.html


nebish - 4/1/2016 at 11:57 AM

But doesn't Trump has a point when he says "if China invades Taiwan it is WWIII and what do we get out of it?" I think Taiwan was the example he gave in some interview or town hall.

Seriously, we should not have went to war in Vietnam correct? Korea? Was it worth it? Would it be worth it again?

Why must we meddle and stay financially and militarily involved in that part of the world?

Most of the time I think we do it for international trade reasons, you know the whole corptocracy thing. And think about the percentage of financial burden the US has had in Japan and South Korea which has freed up money for them to focus on their economy (perhaps at the detriment of our economy).

Just because things have been a way for 60+ years doesn't mean they must stay that way. Ofcourse people in Japan and South Korea would feel one way, it has worked out pretty well for them. How has it worked out for us?

[Edited on 4/1/2016 by nebish]


gondicar - 4/1/2016 at 01:40 PM

quote:
But doesn't Trump has a point when he says "if China invades Taiwan it is WWIII and what do we get out of it?" I think Taiwan was the example he gave in some interview or town hall.

Seriously, we should not have went to war in Vietnam correct? Korea? Was it worth it? Would it be worth it again?

Why must we meddle and stay financially and militarily involved in that part of the world?

Most of the time I think we do it for international trade reasons, you know the whole corptocracy thing. And think about the percentage of financial burden the US has had in Japan and South Korea which has freed up money for them to focus on their economy (perhaps at the detriment of our economy).

Just because things have been a way for 60+ years doesn't mean they must stay that way. Ofcourse people in Japan and South Korea would feel one way, it has worked out pretty well for them. How has it worked out for us?

[Edited on 4/1/2016 by nebish]

So you are in favor of the proliferation of nuclear weapons to countries that don't have them currently, like Japan and South Korea?



[Edited on 4/1/2016 by gondicar]


nebish - 4/1/2016 at 02:46 PM

quote:

So you are in favor of the proliferation of nuclear weapons to countries that don't have them currently, like Japan and South Korea?


I would like to see countries defend their own regions and dream for the day that US no longer needs to offer protection and potentially become entangled with US lives and dollars on the line in foreign conflicts.


gondicar - 4/1/2016 at 02:54 PM

quote:
quote:

So you are in favor of the proliferation of nuclear weapons to countries that don't have them currently, like Japan and South Korea?


I would like to see countries defend their own regions and dream for the day that US no longer needs to offer protection and potentially become entangled with US lives and dollars on the line in foreign conflicts.


Spoken like a true politician, a non-answer answer.


nebish - 4/1/2016 at 03:02 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:

So you are in favor of the proliferation of nuclear weapons to countries that don't have them currently, like Japan and South Korea?


I would like to see countries defend their own regions and dream for the day that US no longer needs to offer protection and potentially become entangled with US lives and dollars on the line in foreign conflicts.


Spoken like a true politician, a non-answer answer.


I think you can get your answer from what I said, don't be disingenuous.


BillyBlastoff - 4/2/2016 at 01:56 AM

Looks like Trump is now being investigated. Apparently it was illegal for him to promise Carson an administration position if Carson endorsed Trump.

I wonder if folks will immediately consider Trump guilty in the same way they assume Hillary is guilty?

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/01/trump-facing-criminal-investigation- illegal-job-offer-ben-carson.html

Regardless. It looks like the FBI will have more to do with choosing our next President than the people will have. Hoover must be ballroom dancing in hell.


Muleman1994 - 4/2/2016 at 03:21 AM

quote:
Looks like Trump is now being investigated. Apparently it was illegal for him to promise Carson an administration position if Carson endorsed Trump.

I wonder if folks will immediately consider Trump guilty in the same way they assume Hillary is guilty?

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/01/trump-facing-criminal-investigation- illegal-job-offer-ben-carson.html

Regardless. It looks like the FBI will have more to do with choosing our next President than the people will have. Hoover must be ballroom dancing in hell.

______________________________________________________________________

No one is assuming Hillary is guilty, the facts say so.

Or is it that "vast right=wing conspiracy" by the State Department IG (an obama appointee), the Intelligence Services IG (an obama appointee) and The FBI (run by an obama appointee)?

Not one Republican is involved in either criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton.

Try reading accurate information little billy.

Your "source" of your "Trump is now being investigated" is a liberal website:





BTW, you lied.
There is no investigation. Read your own source dumbass:

"A public interest group has written to the Justice Department seeking a criminal investigation into Ben Carson's claim that Donald Trump illegally offered him a job in his administration in exchange for his endorsement. "

There also is no proof of an offer.

Now go hide in your safe space and try on your new Hillary "Signature Series" pantsuit.


[Edited on 4/2/2016 by Muleman1994]


BillyBlastoff - 4/2/2016 at 04:23 AM

Wow Mule. I forgot just how vile and sick your putrid heart actually is. I feel a transcendence. I'm actually happy you are in pain. I'm happy you are so black hearted, so bitter, so filled with hate.

What kind of malignancy fills your soul? What kind of carnivorous worms are eating you from the inside out?

You are mired in the deepest black pit of hatred Son. I hope your agony ends soon. May you find the light.


gondicar - 4/3/2016 at 02:44 AM

Sarah Palin has gone full on insane in the name of Donald Trump. Unfukingreal.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/04/01/palin-stuns-room-with-claim-latinos -are-enticed-over-border-with-soccer-ball-filled-gift-baskets-tweets/


Muleman1994 - 4/4/2016 at 01:22 AM

quote:
Wow Mule. I forgot just how vile and sick your putrid heart actually is. I feel a transcendence. I'm actually happy you are in pain. I'm happy you are so black hearted, so bitter, so filled with hate.

What kind of malignancy fills your soul? What kind of carnivorous worms are eating you from the inside out?

You are mired in the deepest black pit of hatred Son. I hope your agony ends soon. May you find the light.

__________________________________________________________________________

Get a clue son, get informed.

Your rant is understandable. You are the one who actually believes the mainstream news media is not driven by political ideology.

Of course you can't explain why the mainstream news media's ratings continue in a downward spiral but don't let the facts confuse you. You are already confused.


gondicar - 4/5/2016 at 11:35 AM

Donald Trump Made Up Stuff 71 Times In An Hour

And that’s counting the commercial breaks.

WASHINGTON — Critics of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign often complain about the way the media has reported on his candidacy. It is not just the incessant coverage that riles them. It’s the perceived lack of fact-checking.

Trump is known for making outlandish and dubious claims with little connection to the truth. The press corps, these critics argue, allows him to float along in a perpetual state of unreality.

The truth is, Trump is routinely fact-checked. It’s just that he makes so many statements in such a rapid and continuous fashion that it becomes virtually impossible to keep up.

On Wednesday, The Huffington Post assigned five and a half reporters to look into a roughly 12,000-word transcript of Trump’s town hall event on CNN the night before. It took us hours, but in all, we found 71 separate instances in which Trump made a claim that was inaccurate, misleading or deeply questionable. That’s basically one falsehood every 169 words (counting the words uttered by moderator Anderson Cooper), or 1.16 falsehoods every minute (the town hall lasted an hour, including commercial breaks).

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/donald-trump-fact-check_us_56fc375fe4b0daf53 aee9175


gina - 4/5/2016 at 09:35 PM

quote:
Looks like Trump is now being investigated. Apparently it was illegal for him to promise Carson an administration position if Carson endorsed Trump.

I wonder if folks will immediately consider Trump guilty in the same way they assume Hillary is guilty?

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/01/trump-facing-criminal-investigation- illegal-job-offer-ben-carson.html

Regardless. It looks like the FBI will have more to do with choosing our next President than the people will have. Hoover must be ballroom dancing in hell.


Hoover ballroom dancing in hell, lol, probably chasing Jimmy Hoffa with a pitchfork too!


Muleman1994 - 4/8/2016 at 12:33 AM

quote:
quote:
Looks like Trump is now being investigated. Apparently it was illegal for him to promise Carson an administration position if Carson endorsed Trump.

I wonder if folks will immediately consider Trump guilty in the same way they assume Hillary is guilty?

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/01/trump-facing-criminal-investigation- illegal-job-offer-ben-carson.html

Regardless. It looks like the FBI will have more to do with choosing our next President than the people will have. Hoover must be ballroom dancing in hell.


Hoover ballroom dancing in hell, lol, probably chasing Jimmy Hoffa with a pitchfork too!

________________________________________________________________________

So, some little left-wing "group" writes a letter to the justice department and nothing happens.

This story is so laughable even the liberal media is not reporting it.

The ballroom dancing thing isn't something big with the liberal crowd right now.
Did y'all see obama trying to Tango in Argentina?
One would think he could dance but alas; he embarrassed our country again.

The dancing (attempt) while murdered American citizens were being taken to morgues in Brussels was just classless and disrespectful but that has been constant during his failed presidency.




gondicar - 4/8/2016 at 04:53 PM

At least he's having a positive impact someplace...


Donald Trump makes Mexican mask factory great again
A Halloween mask factory in Jiutepec, Mexico, is busier than ever. And it's all thanks to Donald Trump.

The company, Caretas REV, has two factories in Jiutepec, a city of nearly 200,000 in the central Mexican state of Morelos.

Trump's fame in the United States -- and infamy in Mexico -- drove demand for the unflattering Trump mask, which picked up last fall when it became clear that the Republican presidential candidate was going to be a serious contender.

Ricardo Esponda, a third-generation co-owner of the mask company and an executive in charge of innovation and design, takes us to one of the multiple shops inside the factory, a warehouse where mostly female workers put the finishing touches on the masks before they're shipped out.

He points toward one worker who's neatly placing strands of artificial hair onto a latex mask.

"We weren't making this mask with hair at first," Esponda said, "but some of our customers asked for it. It's got to have hair."

The one with hair is the deluxe model, and sells for $23 in the United States. The standard all-latex version is $19.95. Caretas REV has since produced tens of thousands of Donald Trump masks.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/07/smallbusiness/trump-halloween-mask/index.ht ml


BoytonBrother - 4/8/2016 at 06:59 PM

quote:
Did y'all see obama trying to Tango in Argentina?
One would think he could dance but alas; he embarrassed our country again.

The dancing (attempt) while murdered American citizens were being taken to morgues in Brussels was just classless and disrespectful but that has been constant during his failed presidency.


Yet another dismal day for Muleman. Your life sounds painful and exhausting. Are you capable of experiencing joy? Or did mommy and daddy take that away from you?

Anyone ever see the SNL skit "Debbie Downer"? Reminds me of Muleman.


bob1954 - 4/8/2016 at 07:44 PM

quote:
One would think he could dance...

Why is that?


Sang - 4/8/2016 at 09:03 PM

All presidents know how to dance......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvxKZRf8k2k


Muleman1994 - 4/9/2016 at 03:24 PM

Obama has never demonstrated the class and dignity of the office.
When American citizens were murdered by Islamic Extremist Terrorists in Brussels, obama goes to a baseball game with a communist dictator in Cuba.
At least in Cuba obama was comfortable.


Sang - 4/10/2016 at 05:28 AM

Obama has more class than you will ever have......and he definitely understands the dignity of the office...

I have read the posts by right wingers that have just vilified Obama and his family - in despicable ways - and he has never stooped to their level, and has ignored them for 7 years - I know I wouldn't have been able to....


BillyBlastoff - 4/10/2016 at 06:54 AM

Obama accepted a Herculean task. Throughout that task he has been an extraordinary leader. I've disagreed with him on many issues but I know history will judge him to be one of the finest Presidents in American History.

That will happen. Obama is the Jackie Robinson of Presidents. The bar was set higher for him. Way higher. And by God President Obama high jumped right over that bar.

That's just my opinion.

I have a friend that hates him. I think primarily because of Obama Care. Last year my friend finally caved, went on the exchange and purchase a policy for his family. Within weeks his youngest son swallowed a tooth pick and had to go to the emergency room. A couple more weeks pass and his eldest son gets hit by a car while he is riding his skateboard. A couple more weeks pass and his wife suffers a cluster of strokes. She spends more than 3 weeks in the hospital for tests. Finally, through the testing, they discover she has ovarian cancer. Now she is going through an arduous and debilitating treatment of chemo.

If my friend had not been forced into buying health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act he might very well be homeless and bankrupt now.

That is no exaggeration. I think he owes Obama a huge thanks. But to talk to my friend its like Obama caused his entire string of bad luck.

Have you noticed that GE has a nationwide advertising campaign going on right now looking for employees? I know my wife is constantly hiring. About 4 years ago her work force consisted of about 4500 people. Now she has nearly 8000 people working for her and she needs more. The company has been building in all sorts of incentives to persuade people to take the jobs and then to keep the long term employees happy and productive.

This wasn't the situation when Obama took office.

When Cruz talks "Republicans are uniting behind our campaign because they want a leader with real solutions who will bring back jobs, freedom, and security." I really got to wonder where he has been for the last 8 years.

Any person with a grasp on reality cannot deny that Obama has made this country better.

He has done a great job.


alloak41 - 4/10/2016 at 05:20 PM

The Debt doubled
Poverty expanded
Wages shrunk
90,000,000 working age citizens out of work
Food stamp usage exploded
Polarization increased
Seven plus years of no-growth economy

Great job? Seriously?


pops42 - 4/10/2016 at 06:20 PM

quote:
The Debt doubled
Poverty expanded
Wages shrunk
90,000,000 working age citizens out of work
Food stamp usage exploded
Polarization increased
Seven plus years of no-growth economy

Great job? Seriously?
LIES from a cvntservative blog site


Muleman1994 - 4/10/2016 at 06:30 PM

quote:
The Debt doubled
Poverty expanded
Wages shrunk
90,000,000 working age citizens out of work
Food stamp usage exploded
Polarization increased
Seven plus years of no-growth economy

Great job? Seriously?

________________________________________________________________________

Obama's cut and run policy in Iraq allowed ISIS to burst forth and kill tens of thousands.

His failed attempt at regime change in Libya created a terrorist controlled country.

Division in the U.S. is at its highest level in history.

His failure to secure our borders has caused the biggest inflow if illegals ever and created and entitlement society which the country cannot afford.

Illegal felons are killing American Citizens and not deported.

Over regulation is crushing small businesses.

His policy of f 'em, let 'em die has killed hundreds of veterans and no one is held accountable.

Obamacare is diminishing the quality of healthcare, closing rural hospitals and driving up cost to the point many can not afford the deductibles and therefore prohibiting people from medical services.
More than half of the so-called "healthcare exchanges" have failed forcing millions to lose health insurance.

Obama's foreign policy is a complete failure.

And the list goes on.


BillyBlastoff - 4/11/2016 at 05:27 AM

Right wing fantasy is now a new category of porn.


brofan - 4/11/2016 at 02:25 PM

quote:
His failure to secure our borders has caused the biggest inflow if illegals ever and created and entitlement society which the country cannot afford.


This is a lie and patently false.

He has deported more illegals than any other president in history - as a matter of fact, he has almost deported more than all other presidents COMBINED. Look it up. I'm not going to do it for you.

How is that being SOFT on illegal immigrants? Oh yeah, it is if you live in the Bizarro world.

Typical right - wing horsesh!t.

[Edited on 4/11/2016 by brofan]


Muleman1994 - 4/11/2016 at 03:15 PM

quote:
Right wing fantasy is now a new category of porn.

___________________________________________________________________________

Yet every point in the long list of failures by obama still exists and is factually accurate.


OriginalGoober - 4/11/2016 at 03:33 PM

quote:
quote:
His failure to secure our borders has caused the biggest inflow if illegals ever and created and entitlement society which the country cannot afford.


This is a lie and patently false.

He has deported more illegals than any other president in history - as a matter of fact, he has almost deported more than all other presidents COMBINED. Look it up. I'm not going to do it for you.

How is that being SOFT on illegal immigrants? Oh yeah, it is if you live in the Bizarro world.

Typical right - wing horsesh!t.

[Edited on 4/11/2016 by brofan]


They catch and release the same person 2, 3, 4 times and Obama gets to spin he is tough on immigration.

[Edited on 4/11/2016 by OriginalGoober]


brofan - 4/11/2016 at 03:51 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
His failure to secure our borders has caused the biggest inflow if illegals ever and created and entitlement society which the country cannot afford.


This is a lie and patently false.

He has deported more illegals than any other president in history - as a matter of fact, he has almost deported more than all other presidents COMBINED. Look it up. I'm not going to do it for you.

How is that being SOFT on illegal immigrants? Oh yeah, it is if you live in the Bizarro world.

Typical right - wing horsesh!t.

[Edited on 4/11/2016 by brofan]


They catch and release the same person 2, 3, 4 times and Obama gets to spin he is tough on immigration.

[Edited on 4/11/2016 by OriginalGoober]


You got any PROOF to back that up? If so, SHOW IT. Back it up with FACTS.

Your ridiculously non - factual response still doesn't explain HOW or WHY all the other presidents were so derelict in THEIR duties at protecting the borders.


gondicar - 4/12/2016 at 12:22 PM


CIA director says agency will not use controversial interrogation techniques again

CIA Director John Brennan has said that his spy agency will not use controversial interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, even if ordered to do so by a future president.

Brennan made the remarks in an interview with NBC News released Sunday.

"I will not agree to carry out some of these tactics and techniques I've heard bandied about because this institution needs to endure," he said. Brennan later added that he would "not agree to having any CIA officer carrying out waterboarding again."

President Barack Obama banned waterboarding shortly after taking office in 2009. However, Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump has repeatedly promised that he would revive the practice if elected.

At a Republican debate in New Hampshire this past February, Trump said he would "bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding", an interrogation technique in which a detainee is made to feel that he is drowning.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Trump's greatest rival for the GOP nomination, said at that same debate that he would not make "widespread use" of the practice, but added that he did not believe the practice amounted to torture.

In December 2014, Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report claiming the interrogation methods used by the CIA in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks were "brutal and far worse" than the agency had represented to lawmakers.

The report alleged that the agency had tortured several suspected Al Qaeda detainees held in secret facilities in Europe and Asia. CIA officials claimed at the time that the interrogation methods produced valuable and actionable intelligence, including information that led U.S. forces to the whereabouts of Usama bin Laden in 2011.

That assessment was echoed by Brennan himself in his response to the report, which read in part, "The intelligence gained from the program was critical to our understanding of Al Qaeda and continues to inform our counterterrorism efforts to this day."

However, during his confirmation hearings to be CIA director in February 2013, Brennan said the intelligence committee's report "raises serious questions about the information that I was given" about the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation techniques.

Brennan later added, "I do not know what the truth is."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/11/cia-director-says-agency-will-no t-use-controversial-interrogation-techniques-again.html


gondicar - 4/12/2016 at 12:24 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
His failure to secure our borders has caused the biggest inflow if illegals ever and created and entitlement society which the country cannot afford.


This is a lie and patently false.

He has deported more illegals than any other president in history - as a matter of fact, he has almost deported more than all other presidents COMBINED. Look it up. I'm not going to do it for you.

How is that being SOFT on illegal immigrants? Oh yeah, it is if you live in the Bizarro world.

Typical right - wing horsesh!t.

[Edited on 4/11/2016 by brofan]


They catch and release the same person 2, 3, 4 times and Obama gets to spin he is tough on immigration.

[Edited on 4/11/2016 by OriginalGoober]

And anyone with a keyboard can make stuff up and spin things however they want.


heineken515 - 4/12/2016 at 01:55 PM

Trump, is that still a thing ?


gondicar - 4/12/2016 at 02:19 PM

quote:
Trump, is that still a thing ?


Ummm, yes?

Although his kids must not think so since they didn't register to in time to vote in the NY primary (must register 25 days in advance). Trump didn't know the rules either and has said that he thought they had to be registered a year in advance so they missed it, when in reality they could have registered up until late-March. It is also telling that at 32 and 34 years old, neither of them have ever bothered to vote...kinda funny watching them stump for dad knowing neither one of them can actually cast a vote for him in the NY primary.




[Edited on 4/12/2016 by gondicar]


brofan - 4/12/2016 at 05:05 PM

quote:
quote:
Trump, is that still a thing ?


Ummm, yes?

Although his kids must not think so since they didn't register to in time to vote in the NY primary (must register 25 days in advance). Trump didn't know the rules either and has said that he thought they had to be registered a year in advance so they missed it, when in reality they could have registered up until late-March. It is also telling that at 32 and 34 years old, neither of them have ever bothered to vote...kinda funny watching them stump for dad knowing neither one of them can actually cast a vote for him in the NY primary.




[Edited on 4/12/2016 by gondicar]


NC's own "esteemed" Senator Richard Burr, who also happens to be chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, showed up to vote in the NC Primary and had NO ID, so he had to cast a provisional ballot.

How ironic that one of the staunchest defenders of NC's voting laws, which are the among the most restrictive in the nation and were clearly rewritten to disenfranchise anyone who votes democratic - blacks, non - whites, even students (student picture IDs are now not accepted) was bitten in the ass by the same law that he and all his cronies in the state legislature rammed through in the wake of Obama's election(s).

You can't make this sh!t up.


Bhawk - 4/12/2016 at 05:47 PM

The Kansas Secretary of State, Kris Kobach (he wrote that Arizona bill that raised all that ruckus and is serving as a top Trump advisor on how to get Mexico to pay for that wall) had to issue a statement yesterday. Seems that the Spanish voting instructions had erroneous information on what forms of ID are acceptable as well as an incorrect deadline date...telling voters reading the Spanish voting guide that you can register up to 15 days before the election. The English version had the correct info, you can register 21 days prior.

Kobach blamed "an administrative error."


gina - 4/13/2016 at 08:57 PM

quote:

CIA director says agency will not use controversial interrogation techniques again

CIA Director John Brennan has said that his spy agency will not use controversial interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, even if ordered to do so by a future president.

Brennan made the remarks in an interview with NBC News released Sunday.

"I will not agree to carry out some of these tactics and techniques I've heard bandied about because this institution needs to endure," he said. Brennan later added that he would "not agree to having any CIA officer carrying out waterboarding again."

President Barack Obama banned waterboarding shortly after taking office in 2009. However, Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump has repeatedly promised that he would revive the practice if elected.

At a Republican debate in New Hampshire this past February, Trump said he would "bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding", an interrogation technique in which a detainee is made to feel that he is drowning.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Trump's greatest rival for the GOP nomination, said at that same debate that he would not make "widespread use" of the practice, but added that he did not believe the practice amounted to torture.

In December 2014, Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report claiming the interrogation methods used by the CIA in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks were "brutal and far worse" than the agency had represented to lawmakers.

The report alleged that the agency had tortured several suspected Al Qaeda detainees held in secret facilities in Europe and Asia. CIA officials claimed at the time that the interrogation methods produced valuable and actionable intelligence, including information that led U.S. forces to the whereabouts of Usama bin Laden in 2011.

That assessment was echoed by Brennan himself in his response to the report, which read in part, "The intelligence gained from the program was critical to our understanding of Al Qaeda and continues to inform our counterterrorism efforts to this day."

However, during his confirmation hearings to be CIA director in February 2013, Brennan said the intelligence committee's report "raises serious questions about the information that I was given" about the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation techniques.

Brennan later added, "I do not know what the truth is."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/11/cia-director-says-agency-will-no t-use-controversial-interrogation-techniques-again.html


If the govt. was going to stop the torture interrogation techniques, there would not be any rendition sites in any countries, yet there are and always will be. After the scandal of the torture at Abu Ghraib, it should have NEVER happened again at Gitmo. It just shows you they do not plan to stop and you haven't even heard some of what they do.


gina - 4/13/2016 at 09:00 PM

quote:
No comments about Trump vs. Cruz, Battle of the Wives?


After that GQ (Gentleman's Quarterly Magazine) photo shoot that Melania did, I don't think we'll have a debate about who has the better looking wife.

Interesting though is Trump had a covert meeting with Megyn Kelly. She was spotted going into Trump Tower and Fox News worked on arranging the meet.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/report-megyn-kelly-meets-privately-w ith-trump/ar-BBrIkFB?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp


Muleman1994 - 4/14/2016 at 01:54 AM

Trump campaign manager will not be prosecuted on battery charge -Politico

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-campaign-manager-will-not-be-p rosecuted-on-battery-charge-politico/ar-BBrIVyb?ocid=ansmsnnews11

April 13 (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's campaign manager, who was charged in Florida last month with battery on a reporter, will not be prosecuted, Politico reported on Wednesday, citing sources with knowledge of the situation.

Corey Lewandowski was charged with intentionally grabbing and bruising the arm of Michelle Fields, then a reporter for the conservative news outlet Breitbart, when she tried to question Trump at a campaign event on March 8.

Palm Beach County State Attorney David Aronberg is scheduled to announce the decision not to press charges against Lewandowski on Thursday afternoon, Politico said. (Reporting by Eric Beech in Washington; Editing by Mohammad Zargham)

***
Michelle Fields now says she will pursue a defamation lawsuit. This was always all about money.


gondicar - 4/14/2016 at 02:20 PM

Too funny...Trump's giving shout outs to dead guys now as he attempts to pander to PA voters.

Donald Trump gives Joe Paterno a shout-out in Pittsburgh

Washington (CNN) Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump tried to appeal to Pennsylvania State University fans at a rally in Pittsburgh Wednesday night by mentioning former legendary Penn State football coach Joe Paterno.

"How's Joe Paterno? We're gonna bring that back? Right? How about that whole deal?" Trump said invoking Paterno, who died in 2012.

Trump, who made the comments before a raucus crowd, then turned his attention back to the university.

"We do love Penn State. Do we love Penn State?" he said to cheers.

A campaign spokesperson said Trump was referring to the statue of Paterno on campus, that was taken down after his former assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky was convicted of child molestation in 2012.

In November 2011, a grand jury report said officials at Penn State failed to notify law enforcement after learning about some of the allegations. Paterno subsequently announced his intent to retire at the end of the season, but hours later, university trustees said Paterno -- and university president Graham Spanier -- were fired, effective immediately.

Penn State had five undefeated seasons under Paterno, also known as "JoePa." In 2012, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) ruled that Penn State must vacate all football wins from 1998-2011. In 2015, the NCAA restored 112 of the team's wins. Some Penn State alumni have been trying to restore the coach's statue.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/14/politics/donald-trump-joe-paterno-pittsburgh/ index.html

[Edited on 4/14/2016 by gondicar]


gina - 4/14/2016 at 11:01 PM

Trump Will be interviewed by @SeanHannity on @FoxNews tonight at 10pm from Pennsylvania.



gondicar - 4/15/2016 at 02:43 PM


Trump Tower Funded by Rich Chinese Who Invest Cash for Visas

Throughout his presidential campaign, Donald Trump has attacked China and warned about the dangers of deficient immigrant screening.

"They’ve taken our jobs, they’ve taken our money, they’ve taken everything," he said of China in a speech late last month. He has called for a revamping, even a freezing, of the immigration system, but says he would make an exception for the highly skilled.

Yet no skills are required of the wealthy Chinese being courted by a Chinese-subtitled video to help finance a huge Trump-branded tower in New Jersey. The video leads viewers behind the wheel of a car into Jersey City with scenes of the tower, all to the tune of the theme song from The Sopranos, "Woke Up This Morning."

The video was produced to help raise tens of millions of dollars through a controversial government program that offers expedited visas to foreign investors overwhelmingly from China. While the program has many supporters who argue it attracts foreign capital and creates jobs at no U.S. taxpayer cost, congressional overseers and Homeland Security have raised sharp concerns. Applicants are sometimes cleared in less than a month and the critics say the government is essentially selling visas to wealthy foreigners with no proven skills, paving the way for money laundering and compromising national security.

Outdoor Pool, Indoor Golf

Trump Bay Street is a 50-story luxury rental apartment building being built by Kushner Companies, whose chief executive officer, Jared Kushner, is married to Trump’s daughter Ivanka. It will have an outdoor pool, indoor golf simulator and sweeping views of Lower Manhattan; it adjoins an existing high rise condo, Trump Plaza Residence. The firm that was hired to seek investors, US Immigration Fund, is run by Florida developer Nicholas Mastroianni, who announced a partnership last year with a Trump golf course in Jupiter, Florida.

The visa program is known as EB-5. In exchange for investing at least $500,000 in a project promising to create jobs, foreigners receive a two-year visa with a good chance of obtaining permanent residency for them and their families. In 2014, the most recent year for which records are available, the U.S. issued 10,692 of these visas -- 85% to people from China.

The Jersey City project has raised $50 million, about a quarter of its funding, from loans obtained through EB-5, according to a slide presentation by US Immigration Fund. Mark Giresi, general counsel of US Immigration Fund, said he believed nearly all of the EB-5 investors in the Trump project were from China.

Asked for a comment for this article, a Trump spokeswoman said by email, "This was a highly successful license deal but he is not a partner in the financing of the development." She did not respond to questions about EB-5. A Kushner spokeswoman said the project was entirely legal and creating jobs.
Verifying Source of Funds

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative branch of Congress, found last year in a general report about the EB-5 program that many applications contained a high risk of fraud, and discovered cases of counterfeit documentation. State Department officials told the GAO that there is “no reliable method to verify the source of the funds of petitioners.”

Giresi of US Immigration Fund says his firm uses “very stringent compliance programs” with a “great amount of due diligence” to look into the background of prospective investors, including hiring private investigators.

Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican who is chairman of the judiciary committee, last month cited a memo from Homeland Security saying that EB-5 visa holders do not clear the same hurdles as other immigrants, like proof of education and work qualifications. Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, said at the hearing that while he has supported EB-5 over the years, "If the program is to continue, it must be reformed."

Last spring, a Homeland Security special agent testified that EB-5 applicants from China, Russia, Pakistan and Malaysia "had been approved in as little as 16 days, with files lacking basic law enforcement queries." And a report last year by the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General found politically connected participants may have received favorable treatment, citing projects involving Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe and Hillary Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham.

A spokesman for Governor McAuliffe said the report demonstrates that he, “along with many other bipartisan individuals and businesses," asked Homeland Security "to fulfill its obligation to adjudicate the applications that were before them in a timely fashion.”

Rodham said in a phone interview that his interaction with Homeland Security was appropriate.
High-Profile Developments

The visa program was intended to create jobs in economically distressed areas but has often turned into a source of financing for high-profile developments in prosperous neighborhoods, such as Brooklyn’s Barclays Center and Manhattan’s Hudson Yards. Audrey Singer, a Brookings fellow, says data collected through the program makes it impossible to track how many jobs get created.

Visas have become an issue in the Trump campaign although he hasn’t addressed the EB-5 program. He has acknowledged using temporary visas for workers at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. He says he wants to eliminate what he calls "rampant, widespread" abuse of temporary visas for skilled workers and is committed to "institute an absolute requirement to hire American workers first for every visa and immigration program."

Trump himself has built few buildings in the past two decades. Instead, developers who want to use the name pay him a licensing fee. A Kushner spokeswoman, Risa Heller, declined to comment on the specific arrangement in Jersey City with Trump’s son-in-law. She said, "The money was raised lawfully by the US Immigration Fund consistent with all the requirements of EB-5. This program enabled a development that created hundreds of new jobs in an area with employment needs.”

Kushner Companies is a New Jersey-based real estate firm built by Kushner’s father Charles, a former rainmaker in New Jersey Democratic politics who pleaded guilty to a federal campaign finance violation, filing false tax returns as well as attempts to silence a witness. Charles was sentenced in 2005 to a prison term of two years. He remains active in the company. Jersey City is the first and, so far, only Trump project for the company.

The Trump building, barely a 5-minute train ride from Lower Manhattan, is located in Jersey City’s Powerhouse district, the site of numerous new high rises and other new construction and renovation. The pale yellow tower is expected to be completed this summer.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-07/trump-tower-financed- by-rich-chinese-who-invest-cash-for-visas


Muleman1994 - 4/19/2016 at 02:30 AM

"Visas have become an issue"

Visas became an issue when it was discovered the 9/11 Islamic Extremist Terrorists were in the U.S. on falsely obtained and expired visas.
The Visas The State Department hands out like candy, doesn't track the people and doesn't enforce the terms of the Visas.

Hillary Clinton handed out tens of thousands of Visas during her 4 year first class world wide tour collecting tens of millions of dollars in "contributions".
The State Department to this day refuses to provide Homeland Security with a list Visa holders loose in the U.S.

And you are crying about a few Visas for laborers?



gondicar - 4/19/2016 at 01:22 PM

"I wrote this out, and it's very close to my heart. Because I was down there and I watched our police and our firemen down at 7/11, down at the World Trade Center right after it came down. And I saw the greatest people I've ever seen in action."

Good thing he wrote that down.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/18/politics/donald-trump-9-11-7-11-mix-buffalo/i ndex.html


gondicar - 4/19/2016 at 04:29 PM

Not sure if this one should go here or in the NFL thread, but today the Donald was introduced by former Jets coach and current Bills coach Rex Ryan, and then said that Rex has won a couple of championships in New York. Bwaaaaa ha ha haaa ha haaaa ha haaa! Oh wait, he was serious?


Tom Brady and Robert Kraft may want to rethink their man-love for Donald Trump.

At a political rally in Buffalo on Monday night, Trump was introduced by one of the gnats constantly biting at the Patriots' ankles -- voluble Bills coach Rex Ryan. And then Trump congratulated Ryan for something he never did, either with the Bills or in his previous job with the Jets.

“You know, he won championships in New York,” Trump said. “The AFC, I think, twice.”

Very, very few of Trump's campaign-trail statements pass the smell test, and this fits that pattern perfectly. Ryan's Jets, though they did twice advance to the AFC Championship Game (beating the Pats in the playoffs along the way once), never won a championship of any kind -- not a division title, not a conference title, and certainly not a Super Bowl title. And the Bills? They missed the playoffs in Ryan's first season there.

Kraft -- who's hosted Trump at Gillette Stadium many times -- has had numerous kind things to say about his fellow billionaire, and a Trump campaign hat was spotted in Brady's locker last fall. Neither has directly come out and endorsed Trump, and -- considering how he just crowned a rival they usually beat -- maybe now they won't.

No matter, though. Trump will simply claim they did.

http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/donald-trump-claims-rex-ryan-won- championships-with-new-york-jets


gondicar - 4/19/2016 at 06:12 PM


bob1954 - 4/19/2016 at 06:21 PM

quote:


gondicar - 4/20/2016 at 12:46 PM

This is a terrifying chart for Republicans
Updated by Ezra Klein on April 19, 2016, 10:46 p.m. ET

Donald Trump looks increasingly likely to be the Republican nominee. Hillary Clinton looks increasingly likely to be the Democratic nominee. And Hillary Clinton looks increasingly likely to stomp Trump in a general election:



As you can see on the chart, Clinton and Trump were about tied back in February. But the more the American people have seen of Trump's campaign, the less they've liked him. Both Clinton and Sanders have pulled far, far ahead of Trump in general election matchups.

This is, according to political scientists, around the time when general election polling becomes predictive of the actual vote. "Were this a few months ago, I'd say, 'What's the big deal?'" Christopher Wlezien, a political science professor who's done a lot of work on election polling, told Vox back in March. "But polls today are much more meaningful than they were 90 days ago. And the polls today are much less favorable for Trump."

To put Trump's deficit in perspective, at this point in the 2012 campaign, Barack Obama led Mitt Romney by 2.7 percentage points — pretty close to Obama's eventual 3.9 percentage point margin of victory. And Romney wasn't as well-known or as polarizing as Trump is, so he probably had more room to change minds than Trump does at this point.

This isn't, by the way, a simple function of the Democratic Party having an advantage over the Republican Party. John Kasich, for instance, leads in polls against Hillary Clinton, and so too did Marco Rubio before he dropped out of the race. These polls, rather, are a function of Republican voters choosing their least electable candidate to face the Democrat.

For Trump to trail Clinton by almost 10 points is a disaster for the Republican Party. These are the sorts of numbers that could lead to Democrats taking back the Senate. They're the kinds of numbers that give Democrats an outside shot at taking back the House. They're the kinds of numbers that give Clinton — a polarizing candidate in her own right — the possibility of a landslide victory.

It's early yet, of course. And plenty can and will happen between now and November. But these are terrifying numbers for Republicans. These are not the numbers you want to see when you're nominating one of the best-known celebrities in America, and when your own party isn't even united behind him.

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/19/11465292/this-is-a-terrifying-chart-for-republ icans


heineken515 - 4/20/2016 at 05:14 PM

Anybody But Hillary


gondicar - 4/20/2016 at 05:23 PM

quote:
Anybody But Hillary

You'd better hope that Kasich can get the nomination at a brokered GOP convention, otherwise it will be President Clinton 2.0.


heineken515 - 4/20/2016 at 05:31 PM

I did my part for Kasich.


BillyBlastoff - 4/20/2016 at 05:45 PM

I did my part for Bernie.


Muleman1994 - 4/22/2016 at 06:11 PM

quote:
I did my part for Bernie.

__________________________________________________________________________

So you have that berning sensation?
There are ointments for that. Note that they should be applied externally.

Obama, The DNC, the democratic party Super Delegates (elites) and Wall Street (who have Hillary Clinton in their pockets) long ago decided that Bernie Sanders will not get the nomination.

Ha ha.


LeglizHemp - 4/25/2016 at 11:35 PM

at Trump's speech tonight.....4/25/16 he said.....the Border Patrol just last week endorsed him.

in reality......that happened 26 days ago on 3/30/16

not a big gaffe but........


LeglizHemp - 4/25/2016 at 11:44 PM

i am not saying this story is fact, but it is an interesting thought.

"Last October, Death and Taxes ran a piece wondering if Trump had dementia. They pointed to the fact that Trump’s father, Fred, was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s six years prior to his death."

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/25/maybe_donald_trump_has_really_lost_his_mind _what_if_the_gop_frontrunner_isnt_crazy_but_simply_not_well/


bob1954 - 4/25/2016 at 11:49 PM

quote:
i am not saying this story is fact, but it is an interesting thought.

"Last October, Death and Taxes ran a piece wondering if Trump had dementia. They pointed to the fact that Trump’s father, Fred, was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s six years prior to his death."

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/25/maybe_donald_trump_has_really_lost_his_mind _what_if_the_gop_frontrunner_isnt_crazy_but_simply_not_well/


Best line in the article: "At times it can be very hard to distinguish between extreme right-wing politics and symptoms of dementia."


LeglizHemp - 4/25/2016 at 11:56 PM

quote:
quote:
i am not saying this story is fact, but it is an interesting thought.

"Last October, Death and Taxes ran a piece wondering if Trump had dementia. They pointed to the fact that Trump’s father, Fred, was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s six years prior to his death."

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/25/maybe_donald_trump_has_really_lost_his_mind _what_if_the_gop_frontrunner_isnt_crazy_but_simply_not_well/


Best line in the article: "At times it can be very hard to distinguish between extreme right-wing politics and symptoms of dementia."


personally i liked this one......with apologies to my friend muleman

They explained that it would be really easy for Trump take some tests and prove that he is mentally fit. “Because if Trump can prove he’s not suffering from a degenerative neurological disorder that has left him with a damaged mind devoid of all shame or self-awareness, he might just be an a-hole.”

[Edited on 4/25/2016 by LeglizHemp]


gondicar - 4/26/2016 at 04:01 PM

Poll: Trump's support among young voters historically low

(CNN)A new poll suggests that a race for president between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton could yield the lowest support for a Republican candidate among young voters in decades.

The survey, conducted by the Harvard University Institute of Politics, finds that in a hypothetical matchup, 61% of likely voters age 18-29 say they would vote for Clinton, while just 25% would vote for Trump. That's worse than most other recent Republican candidates for president.

Since 1992, exit polls have found Republican candidates average 38% support among voters under 30. Sen. John McCain notched 32% against Barack Obama in 2008, marking the low-point for GOP candidates dating back to 1972, when modern exit polling began. Ronald Reagan was the only Republican candidate to win the under-30 vote since then.

As this year's campaign for president has rolled on, younger Americans have tilted more Democratic generally, according to the IOP's surveys. Last fall, 36% said they considered themselves Democrats, that's up to 40% in the new survey. Republican affiliation has held about even at 22%, while the share who are independent has dipped from 40% to 36%.

Before asking about the current crop of candidates, the survey asked young Americans if they would prefer a Democrat or a Republican win the next election. The share saying they'd like a Democrat to win has climbed from 55% last spring to 61% now, while the percentage who favored a Republican dipped from 40% to 33%.
That change rests mostly among younger Hispanics (from 41 points toward the Democrats last spring to 55 points now) and whites (a 12-point Republican tilt last year is now a 2-point Democratic edge). White voters under 30 have only broken toward the Democrat twice since 1972: By 4 points in Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign and by 10 points in Obama's first presidential win in 2008.

The Republican Party's chances among young Americans likely aren't helped by largely negative impressions of its remaining presidential candidates. Three-quarters of young Americans say they have an unfavorable view of Donald Trump, just 17% view him favorably. A majority, 52%, have an unfavorable view of Ted Cruz, 23% see him positively. And even John Kasich, who is less well known with about 4 in 10 saying they don't know enough to have an impression, merits a negative tilt among those who do have an impression: 33% unfavorable to 24% favorable.

In keeping with national trends, Hillary Clinton is also largely seen unfavorably, 53% have a negative impression, 37% a positive one. Her Democratic rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, is the only candidate to be seen favorably by a majority of young Americans, 54% favorable to 31% unfavorable.

Sanders has fared remarkably well among voters under age 30 in Democratic primaries and caucuses to date, averaging 70% support among this group, according to exit and entrance polling conducted in 21 states for CNN by Edison Research.

The IOP survey finds young Americans broadly distrustful of government and expressing doubts that political leaders share their concerns or that politics today can meet the nation's challenges.

Overall, just 15% of those under 30 think the nation is heading in the right direction, while almost three times as many say it's going the wrong way. Another 36% aren't sure which way it's going. Majorities say they rarely trust the president, Congress, the Supreme Court or the federal government more generally. A majority say they agree that elected officials "don't seem to have the same priorities I have," and about half agree that "politics today are no longer able to meet the challenges our country is facing" and that "politics has become too partisan."

Despite that pessimism about politics, most say they do plan to vote in November and about 6 in 10 say it matters to them who the president is.

The Harvard IOP Survey was conducted March 18 through April 3 among a random national sample of 3,183 Americans age 18 to 29. The poll was conducted online among respondents selected from GfK's KnowledgePanel, whose members are recruited using traditional phone and by-mail surveys and are provided with Internet access if they do not have it.

Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.4 percentage points.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/25/politics/donald-trump-young-voters/index.html


Muleman1994 - 4/26/2016 at 06:01 PM

quote:
Poll: Trump's support among young voters historically low

(CNN)A new poll suggests that a race for president between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton could yield the lowest support for a Republican candidate among young voters in decades.

The survey, conducted by the Harvard University Institute of Politics, finds that in a hypothetical matchup, 61% of likely voters age 18-29 say they would vote for Clinton, while just 25% would vote for Trump. That's worse than most other recent Republican candidates for president.

Since 1992, exit polls have found Republican candidates average 38% support among voters under 30. Sen. John McCain notched 32% against Barack Obama in 2008, marking the low-point for GOP candidates dating back to 1972, when modern exit polling began. Ronald Reagan was the only Republican candidate to win the under-30 vote since then.

As this year's campaign for president has rolled on, younger Americans have tilted more Democratic generally, according to the IOP's surveys. Last fall, 36% said they considered themselves Democrats, that's up to 40% in the new survey. Republican affiliation has held about even at 22%, while the share who are independent has dipped from 40% to 36%.

Before asking about the current crop of candidates, the survey asked young Americans if they would prefer a Democrat or a Republican win the next election. The share saying they'd like a Democrat to win has climbed from 55% last spring to 61% now, while the percentage who favored a Republican dipped from 40% to 33%.
That change rests mostly among younger Hispanics (from 41 points toward the Democrats last spring to 55 points now) and whites (a 12-point Republican tilt last year is now a 2-point Democratic edge). White voters under 30 have only broken toward the Democrat twice since 1972: By 4 points in Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign and by 10 points in Obama's first presidential win in 2008.

The Republican Party's chances among young Americans likely aren't helped by largely negative impressions of its remaining presidential candidates. Three-quarters of young Americans say they have an unfavorable view of Donald Trump, just 17% view him favorably. A majority, 52%, have an unfavorable view of Ted Cruz, 23% see him positively. And even John Kasich, who is less well known with about 4 in 10 saying they don't know enough to have an impression, merits a negative tilt among those who do have an impression: 33% unfavorable to 24% favorable.

In keeping with national trends, Hillary Clinton is also largely seen unfavorably, 53% have a negative impression, 37% a positive one. Her Democratic rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, is the only candidate to be seen favorably by a majority of young Americans, 54% favorable to 31% unfavorable.

Sanders has fared remarkably well among voters under age 30 in Democratic primaries and caucuses to date, averaging 70% support among this group, according to exit and entrance polling conducted in 21 states for CNN by Edison Research.

The IOP survey finds young Americans broadly distrustful of government and expressing doubts that political leaders share their concerns or that politics today can meet the nation's challenges.

Overall, just 15% of those under 30 think the nation is heading in the right direction, while almost three times as many say it's going the wrong way. Another 36% aren't sure which way it's going. Majorities say they rarely trust the president, Congress, the Supreme Court or the federal government more generally. A majority say they agree that elected officials "don't seem to have the same priorities I have," and about half agree that "politics today are no longer able to meet the challenges our country is facing" and that "politics has become too partisan."

Despite that pessimism about politics, most say they do plan to vote in November and about 6 in 10 say it matters to them who the president is.

The Harvard IOP Survey was conducted March 18 through April 3 among a random national sample of 3,183 Americans age 18 to 29. The poll was conducted online among respondents selected from GfK's KnowledgePanel, whose members are recruited using traditional phone and by-mail surveys and are provided with Internet access if they do not have it.

Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.4 percentage points.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/25/politics/donald-trump-young-voters/index.html

_______________________________________________________________________

Your sources are both far-left; Harvard's political club and CNN.
Just more liberal opinion which belongs in the trash.




nebish - 4/27/2016 at 08:01 PM

Anyone see Chris Christie's wife behind Trump during his victory speech last night? Not quite sure she is on the bandwagon. He starts talking about "if Hillary was a man she wouldn't even get 5% of the vote" and Christie's wife is just like 'wtf am I doing up here'.


Bhawk - 4/27/2016 at 08:19 PM

quote:
Your sources are both far-left; Harvard's political club


Actually, the Harvard Institute of Politics is quite bi-partisan. There is a level atop the Ivy League set where left and right no longer matter.


bob1954 - 4/27/2016 at 08:22 PM

quote:
Anyone see Chris Christie's wife behind Trump during his victory speech last night? Not quite sure she is on the bandwagon. He starts talking about "if Hillary was a man she wouldn't even get 5% of the vote" and Christie's wife is just like 'wtf am I doing up here'.

Christie has also looked that way ever since the day he endorsed Trump. I'm not sure what back door deal may have been made but the Christie endorsement does not appear to be "from the heart".


BoytonBrother - 4/28/2016 at 01:27 PM

The week Trump made his comments about illegal Mexican immigrants, I went on record here saying he would be our next President. His supporters know he is bad for the country, and their support is a way of saying "this is how it felt when you guys elected Obama twice". It's payback, nothing more, nothing less. They know he's bad for the country, but they will vote him in anyway simply to piss off liberals.

[Edited on 4/28/2016 by BoytonBrother]


heineken515 - 4/28/2016 at 01:32 PM

You've managed to boil down all Trump supporters points of view into that?

Wow, you are good.


Muleman1994 - 5/1/2016 at 04:41 PM




gondicar - 5/3/2016 at 07:18 PM

Moments after Trump cited a National Enquirer article in accusing Cruz's father of being connected to JFKs assassination, Cruz went off. It must be driving Ted crazy that Trump can lie and lie and lie about anything and everything he wants and the GOP primary voters keep voting for him. At least I can agree with Ted on something...

Cruz unloads with epic takedown of 'pathological liar,' 'narcissist' Donald Trump
By David Wright, Tal Kopan and Julia Manchester, CNN

(CNN) Ted Cruz on Tuesday unloaded on Donald Trump, accusing him during a news conference of being a "pathological liar," "utterly amoral," "a narcissist at a level I don't think this country's ever seen" and "a serial philanderer."

"He is proud of being a serial philanderer ... he describes his own battles with venereal diseases as his own personal Vietnam," Cruz said, citing a decades-old Trump appearance on "The Howard Stern Show."

The Texas senator's dramatic and deeply personal attack on Trump comes as polls indicate Trump is poised to claim victory in Cruz's must-win state of Indiana and follow accusations the front-runner made about Cruz's father.

The epic takedown of his opponent on an all-important voting day was extraordinary even by the standards of the 2016 campaign -- and quickly drew a scathing response from Trump.

"This man is a pathological liar, he doesn't know the difference between truth and lies ... in a pattern that is straight out of a psychology text book, he accuses everyone of lying," Cruz said as Indiana voters headed to cast their ballots.

"Whatever lie he's telling, at that minute he believes it ... the man is utterly amoral," Cruz told reporters. "Donald is a bully ... bullies don't come from strength they come from weakness."

Trump trashes Cruz's dad

Earlier Tuesday, Trump had criticized Rafael Cruz, calling him "disgraceful" after he urged evangelical voters in Indiana to reject his son's rival.

Trump also referenced a report from the tabloid National Enquirer -- without naming the publication -- which alleged that it had identified Rafael Cruz in a photo with Lee Harvey Oswald months prior to the JFK assassination. CNN has not independently confirmed that report.

"And (Ted Cruz's) father, you know, was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's, you know, being shot. I mean the whole thing is ridiculous," Trump said in an interview on "Fox and Friends." "I mean what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the death? Before the shooting? It's horrible."

'A very angry man'

Trump responded with a statement Tuesday afternoon calling Cruz "unhinged" and "desperate" as his losses to Trump have mounted.

"Today's ridiculous outburst only proves what I have been saying for a long time, that Ted Cruz does not have the temperament to be president of the United States," Trump said.

Trump's senior campaign adviser Barry Bennett downplayed Cruz's emotional outburst as a response to Trump and called it evidence of Cruz's failing campaign headed into primary night.

"We're watching his campaign implode, we're watching his reputation be torn to shreds ... he's a very angry man right now," Bennett told CNN's Kate Bolduan on "At This Hour," calling it a "truly sad display."

Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., also tweeted the move was "desperate" and called it childish.

"That was an impressive meltdown... Desperate but impressive. Reminded me of my 3 year old coming off a sugar high," he wrote.

Not the first time

It's not the first time the two candidates have come to verbal blows over a spat involving Cruz's family members.

Trump and Cruz exchanged accusations about each other inappropriately going after the candidates' wives in March, when Trump retweeted an unflattering picture of Heidi Cruz next to a flattering picture of his model wife, Melania. Trump also ambiguously threatened to "spill the beans" on Heidi.

Cruz responded angrily, calling Trump a "sniveling coward" and telling him to "leave Heidi the hell alone."
The National Enquirer -- which endorsed Trump -- has also run recent stories making various allegations about the billionaire businessman and about his rival that have not been confirmed by CNN or other publications.

The Cruz campaign responded to Trump by calling him "detached from reality."

"His false, cheap, meaningless comments every day indicate his desperation to get attention and willingness to say anything to do so," said Catherine Frazier, Cruz's campaign spokeswoman in a statement. "We are campaigning on jobs freedom and security while Trump campaigns on false tabloid garbage. And the media is willfully enabling him to cheapen the value of our democratic process."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/donald-trump-rafael-cruz-indiana/ind ex.html


bob1954 - 5/3/2016 at 07:49 PM

quote:


Is that supposed to be flattering?


goldtop - 5/3/2016 at 08:50 PM

Trump in the early 70's

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALE6ENavvJQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM


Muleman1994 - 5/3/2016 at 09:50 PM

quote:
Moments after Trump cited a National Enquirer article in accusing Cruz's father of being connected to JFKs assassination, Cruz went off. It must be driving Ted crazy that Trump can lie and lie and lie about anything and everything he wants and the GOP primary voters keep voting for him. At least I can agree with Ted on something...

Cruz unloads with epic takedown of 'pathological liar,' 'narcissist' Donald Trump
By David Wright, Tal Kopan and Julia Manchester, CNN

(CNN) Ted Cruz on Tuesday unloaded on Donald Trump, accusing him during a news conference of being a "pathological liar," "utterly amoral," "a narcissist at a level I don't think this country's ever seen" and "a serial philanderer."

"He is proud of being a serial philanderer ... he describes his own battles with venereal diseases as his own personal Vietnam," Cruz said, citing a decades-old Trump appearance on "The Howard Stern Show."

The Texas senator's dramatic and deeply personal attack on Trump comes as polls indicate Trump is poised to claim victory in Cruz's must-win state of Indiana and follow accusations the front-runner made about Cruz's father.

The epic takedown of his opponent on an all-important voting day was extraordinary even by the standards of the 2016 campaign -- and quickly drew a scathing response from Trump.

"This man is a pathological liar, he doesn't know the difference between truth and lies ... in a pattern that is straight out of a psychology text book, he accuses everyone of lying," Cruz said as Indiana voters headed to cast their ballots.

"Whatever lie he's telling, at that minute he believes it ... the man is utterly amoral," Cruz told reporters. "Donald is a bully ... bullies don't come from strength they come from weakness."

Trump trashes Cruz's dad

Earlier Tuesday, Trump had criticized Rafael Cruz, calling him "disgraceful" after he urged evangelical voters in Indiana to reject his son's rival.

Trump also referenced a report from the tabloid National Enquirer -- without naming the publication -- which alleged that it had identified Rafael Cruz in a photo with Lee Harvey Oswald months prior to the JFK assassination. CNN has not independently confirmed that report.

"And (Ted Cruz's) father, you know, was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's, you know, being shot. I mean the whole thing is ridiculous," Trump said in an interview on "Fox and Friends." "I mean what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the death? Before the shooting? It's horrible."

'A very angry man'

Trump responded with a statement Tuesday afternoon calling Cruz "unhinged" and "desperate" as his losses to Trump have mounted.

"Today's ridiculous outburst only proves what I have been saying for a long time, that Ted Cruz does not have the temperament to be president of the United States," Trump said.

Trump's senior campaign adviser Barry Bennett downplayed Cruz's emotional outburst as a response to Trump and called it evidence of Cruz's failing campaign headed into primary night.

"We're watching his campaign implode, we're watching his reputation be torn to shreds ... he's a very angry man right now," Bennett told CNN's Kate Bolduan on "At This Hour," calling it a "truly sad display."

Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., also tweeted the move was "desperate" and called it childish.

"That was an impressive meltdown... Desperate but impressive. Reminded me of my 3 year old coming off a sugar high," he wrote.

Not the first time

It's not the first time the two candidates have come to verbal blows over a spat involving Cruz's family members.

Trump and Cruz exchanged accusations about each other inappropriately going after the candidates' wives in March, when Trump retweeted an unflattering picture of Heidi Cruz next to a flattering picture of his model wife, Melania. Trump also ambiguously threatened to "spill the beans" on Heidi.

Cruz responded angrily, calling Trump a "sniveling coward" and telling him to "leave Heidi the hell alone."
The National Enquirer -- which endorsed Trump -- has also run recent stories making various allegations about the billionaire businessman and about his rival that have not been confirmed by CNN or other publications.

The Cruz campaign responded to Trump by calling him "detached from reality."

"His false, cheap, meaningless comments every day indicate his desperation to get attention and willingness to say anything to do so," said Catherine Frazier, Cruz's campaign spokeswoman in a statement. "We are campaigning on jobs freedom and security while Trump campaigns on false tabloid garbage. And the media is willfully enabling him to cheapen the value of our democratic process."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/donald-trump-rafael-cruz-indiana/ind ex.html


_________________________________________________________________________

Yes, that would be The National Enquirer who exposed John Edwards, the failed democrat candidate for President for banging a mistress while his wife was dying of cancer.

The mainstream media knew the story but being in the tank for liberals they didn't report it.


Muleman1994 - 5/3/2016 at 09:51 PM

quote:
quote:


Is that supposed to be flattering?

__________________________________________________________________________

Patriotic.
Something that the liberals find repulsive.


bob1954 - 5/3/2016 at 10:45 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:


Is that supposed to be flattering?

__________________________________________________________________________

Patriotic.
Something that the liberals find repulsive.


Ah yes, I can appreciate a good patriotism poster...


Muleman1994 - 5/3/2016 at 11:46 PM

And disrespectful during our National Anthem:





2112 - 5/4/2016 at 01:33 AM


2112 - 5/4/2016 at 01:45 AM

Cruz drops out of the race, handing the nomination to Trump, and thus handing the presidency to Clinton! Good day!


Muleman1994 - 5/4/2016 at 02:22 AM

Trumps wins again.

Bernie Sanders wins but it doesn't matter, obama, The DNC, Wall Street and the democratic party elites long ago decided Hillary Clinton will be their nominee... depending of course on the outcome of the two FBI criminal investigations of Hillary Clinton.


gondicar - 5/4/2016 at 01:29 PM

Trump’s Tall Tabloid Tale

By Robert Farley
Posted on May 3, 2016

Trump used a thinly sourced story from the tabloid National Enquirer to make the baseless claim that Ted Cruz’s father “was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald’s being — you know, shot.”

The National Enquirer story hangs largely on comments from a photo expert who said a photo of an unidentified man handing out pro-Fidel Castro leaflets with Oswald has “more similarity than dissimilarity” with a passport photo of Cruz’s father, Rafael.

But that same expert told us in a phone interview that he never claimed the man in the picture with Oswald was definitely Rafael Cruz, only that comparing the man in the photo with a photo of Cruz as a young man revealed “more similarities than dissimilarities.” In fact, he called Trump’s definitive proclamation “stupid.”

The National Enquirer story ran last month under the salacious, front-page headline “Ted Cruz Father Linked to JFK Assassination!” It included a picture of Oswald distributing pro-Castro literature in New Orleans in August 1963, a few months prior to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas. According to the Miami Herald, another man in the picture was never identified by the Warren Commission, whose investigation concluded Kennedy was assassinated by Oswald and that Oswald acted alone.

The tabloid story got legs on May 3 when Trump referenced it in an interview on “Fox and Friends.”

“His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald’s being, you know, shot!” Trump said. “I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous. What – what is this right, prior to his being shot. And nobody even brings it up. I mean, they don’t even talk about that, that was reported and nobody talks about it. But I think it’s horrible, I think it’s absolutely horrible, that a man can go and do that, what he’s saying there.”

Trump later added, “I mean what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the death – before the shooting? It’s horrible.”

The Enquirer cited two photo experts to make the connection that the unidentified man ​”caught on camera in New Orleans — alongside Lee Harvey Oswald” — was Rafael Cruz.

Central to the story was the analysis of Mitch Goldstone, president and CEO of ScanMyPhotos, a California-based digitizing photo service. He is quoted as saying, “There’s more similarity than dissimilarity. … it looks to be the same person and I can say as much with a high degree of confidence.

Read that carefully. He’s not saying with a high degree of certainty that it’s Rafael Cruz. He’s saying with a high degree of certainty that it “looks to be the same person.” There’s a difference.

We reached out to Goldstone, and he told us by phone, “I stand behind those comments 100 percent.” But he explained that he did not employ facial recognition technology to reach his conclusions, because the photographs are too grainy. Rather, he said, he utilized a tool called FotoForensics to authenticate that the photos had not been digitally altered.

Then he compared, by eye, the photo of the unidentified man in the picture with Oswald with a passport photo of a young Rafael Cruz. Based on features like facial structure and skin texture, he concluded — using a phrase that he repeated numerous times — that there were “more similarities than dissimilarities” in the appearance of the two men.

“They look pretty close,” Goldstone said.

“I never said categorically that it is him,” Goldstone told us. “I said it looks to be more similar than dissimilar.”

Goldstone said that contrary to at least one report he saw, he was not paid by the National Enquirer for his opinion.

“I think anyone who would look at that would come to the same conclusion,” he said.

Goldstone is calling on the Cruz campaign to release all of the photos they have of Rafael Cruz from that period, because “it’d be really helpful” in reaching a conclusive determination.

The National Enquirer story also quotes Carole Lieberman, a University of California at Los Angeles forensic psychiatrist and expert witness based in Beverly Hills, California. She also compared the photos and told the Enquirer that “they seem to match.” We reached out to Lieberman as well, but did not hear back from her.

Regardless, Anil Jain, a computer scientist and expert on facial recognition and biometric identification at Michigan State University, told us not to put much stock in those assessments.

The images are of a poor quality, black and white. and grainy, he said. “It would be very difficult, even for a photo expert, to extract facial attributes,” he said. Any conclusion about similarities is subjective, he said.

As for the features of the people in the pictures being “more similar than dissimilar,” Jain said, “compared to what?” To do such a comparison, you’d need to compare the image with hundreds of others to determine if they are more similar or dissimilar.

“It doesn’t mean anything,” Jain said of Goldstone’s conclusion. “Anyone can make that statement.”

In fact, he said, Rafael Cruz’s flared out ears don’t seem to match those of the unidentified man in the Oswald photo. “There is no scientific basis to say the unidentified person in the Lee Harvey Oswald photo has any similarities with the Rafael Cruz picture. There is no way you can reliably extract any facial characteristics,” Jain said.

And, we would note, even if it were Rafael Cruz in the picture with Oswald, there is no evidence whatsoever that he had anything to do with the Kennedy assassination, despite a headline that claimed “Ted Cruz Father Linked to JFK Assassination!”

The Cruz campaign has vigorously denied that the unidentified man in the photo with Oswald is Rafael Cruz. Cruz called Trump’s claim “kooky.”

“This is another garbage story in a tabloid full of garbage,” Communications Director Alice Stewart told McClatchy. “The story is false; that is not Rafael in the picture.” The Miami Herald reported that while the elder Cruz was once a supporter of Fidel Castro, he turned away from the Cuban leader when Castro declared in 1961 that he was a Marxist.

The Herald’s April 22 story also noted a McClatchy report that quoted Gus Russo, an author and journalist who has written extensively about the JFK assassination and Oswald, as saying the Enquirer report is dubious. Russo told McClatchy in an interview that Oswald, “who was living in New Orleans in 1963, was not connected to the Cuban community there and would not have had a Cuban supporter helping him,” the Herald said.

The Trump campaign did not respond to our inquiries for backup for Trump’s claim.

This is not the first time the Enquirer has injected itself into the presidential campaign. A March Enquirer piece alleged multiple extramarital affairs for Cruz — an accusation that his campaign vehemently denied. Trump also landed a rare endorsement from the publication in March of this year, and has written several op-eds for the magazine. In addition to Cruz, the Enquirer has attacked many of Trump’s other campaign rivals, including Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson and Hillary Clinton.

David Pecker, the CEO of the Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc., has been said to have a close personal relationship with Trump. New York Magazine called them “friends for years,” and the New York Daily News reported that they are “very close.” Trump has voiced support for Pecker in the past, endorsing him to take over Time magazine in 2013. It is worth noting that the Enquirer has also run several less-than-flattering stories on Trump in the past, especially in the 1990s before Pecker came on as CEO.


alanwoods - 5/4/2016 at 01:35 PM

quote:


David Pecker , the CEO of the Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc



Rather unfortunate surname.


alanwoods - 5/4/2016 at 01:37 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:


Is that supposed to be flattering?

__________________________________________________________________________

Patriotic.
Something that the liberals find repulsive.



It fails miserably.


gondicar - 5/4/2016 at 01:51 PM

At the starting gate: Clinton leads Trump by double-digits

(CNN) As Donald Trump captures the mantle of presumptive Republican nominee, a new poll finds he begins his general election campaign well behind Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

The new CNN/ORC Poll, completed ahead of Trump's victory last night, found Clinton leads 54% to 41%, a 13-point edge over the New York businessman, her largest lead since last July.

Clinton is also more trusted than Trump on many issues voters rank as critically important, with one big exception. By a 50% to 45% margin, voters say Trump would do a better job handling the economy than Clinton would.

Almost 9 out of 10 voters in the poll called the economy extremely or very important to their vote for president, outranking any other issue tested in the poll.

Clinton has the edge on a range of other issues. She is more trusted than Trump on terrorism (50% Clinton to 45% Trump), immigration (51% to 44%), health care (55% to 39%), the income gap (54% to 37%), foreign policy (61% to 36%), education (61% to 34%) and climate change (63% to 30%).

Overall, voters are evenly split on their opinion of Clinton -- 49% see her favorably and the same share unfavorably. But a decidedly larger group (56%) see Trump unfavorably than see him favorably (41%).

Full story: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/04/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-poll-ge neral-election/index.html


Brendan - 5/4/2016 at 02:25 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:


Is that supposed to be flattering?

__________________________________________________________________________

Patriotic.
Something that the liberals find repulsive.



It fails miserably.
How could you possibly say that? It has:

Cash flying around
An Eagle with a machine gun
It says Big Gulp
It has a thumbs up
The Donald is wearing a WWE Belt
The treads of the tank are GOLD

I don't think I've ever seen anything more American than this, but if you want to try to find something, you should check out the artists entire catalog. Impressive stuff...

https://www.etsy.com/shop/sharpwriter

[Edited on 5/4/2016 by Brendan]


gondicar - 5/5/2016 at 01:58 AM

Oscar De La Hoya details how Donald Trump cheats on the golf course
He's not the first to call Trump a cheater on the links
By Cameron DaSilva
May 4, 2016 at 3:59p ET

Donald Trump owns golf courses around the world, from Florida to Dubai. He's never been shy about discussing his golf game. He claims to have won several club championships in his lifetime, boasting a 3.0 handicap index.

But how much of his bragging is true? According to boxer Oscar De La Hoya, not much. That's because Trump is supposedly a cheater on the golf course, which Samuel L. Jackson said back in January, as did Alice Cooper in 2012.

"Yes, I caught him," De La Hoya told the Los Angeles Times. "It was unbelievable. But I guess it was his course, so it was his rules."

Here's how Trump cheated, according to De La Hoya:

"First ball, Trump hits off to the water, gets another ball from his pocket," he said. "Hits it off to the left, out of bounds. Trump said, 'Oh, I got another one, just warming up.'

"Another one to the water. Then the fourth ball he hits I know it went to the bushes. But Donald, what he does, he tees off first so he can take off right away. I pipe mine down the middle. So we go off to our ball, and who do we see? Donald Trump, right in the middle of the fairway."

At that point, De La Hoya quoted Trump as saying, "By the way, I found my first ball, it's right here."

Obviously, it got there somehow after hitting four balls wayward. But that wasn't the last time Trump pulled a fast one on the group.

"Then we go on to a par-3. There's a big bush right between the tee and the green, so you can't really see the green -- you can see the flag, not the green," De La Hoya said. "Trump hits and we just know it went out of bounds. We know it. He takes off. We get up there and he's like, 'Oh, my ball's right here!' Three feet away. 'And by the way, I'm going to pick it up, it's a gimme.' "

Trump isn't the first golfer to use a couple breakfast balls on the first tee. In fact, he's not even the first golfer to drop a ball from his pocket after losing his first one. But this story told by De La Hoya is fantastic, particularly when Trump finds his ball three feet from the pin.

Maybe next time he'll be a bit more subtle when shaving strokes from his score.

http://www.foxsports.com/golf/story/golf-donald-trump-oscar-de-la-hoya-chea ter-course-story-050416


heineken515 - 5/5/2016 at 12:34 PM

Love him, hate him.

Support his policies/positions or not.

I simply admire the fact he made it this far, in this day and age of politics and "the process."

Very few thought he would have made it this far.


gondicar - 5/5/2016 at 12:41 PM

Whether he is deliberately making stuff up and lying or he just doesn't know what he is talking about, there is no debate that the presumptive GOP nominee is flat out wrong on many things...why does he always get a free pass from his "followers" when it comes to blatantly misstating/misrepresenting easily verifiable factual information? Do they not think being truthful and knowing what is real and what isn't on these topics are important qualities for their nominee, or are they so taken with his shallow rhetoric that nothing else matters?

Trump’s Education Exaggeration
By Eugene Kiely
Posted on May 4, 2016

Donald Trump claimed in an Indiana speech that the U.S. ranks “last in education” and “first in terms of spending per pupil” among 30 countries. He’s wrong on both counts, as measured by federal and international organizations.

The National Center for Education Statistics referred us to three sets of data that measure the performance of U.S. students with their international counterparts in math, science and reading. The U.S. does not finish last in any of the assessments.

As for spending, the U.S. ranked fourth among 33 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries in 2012 behind Switzerland, Norway and Austria in spending per pupil on primary and secondary education. Another way of measuring education spending is as a percentage of GDP, which “allows a comparison of countries’ expenditures relative to their ability to finance education,” as the NCES says in its most recent “Education Expenditures by Country” report. Measured as a percentage of GDP, the U.S. ranked 18th in spending on primary and secondary education in 2012, tied with Canada and Chile, according to OECD data.

U.S. Not ‘Last in Education’
In his speech in South Bend, Indiana, on the eve of that state’s primary, Trump discussed a host of areas in which he claimed “the country is doing terribly.” In several instances, he repeated false statements on subjects such as trade and unemployment, which we will address later. The education claims, however, were new to us.

Trump, May 2: Now, if you look at education. Thirty countries. We’re last. We’re like 30th. We’re last. So we’re last in education. If you look at cost per pupil we’re first. So we — and by the way, there is no second because we spent so much more per pupil that they don’t even talk about No. 2. It’s ridiculous.

Trump did not cite a source for his claim, and his campaign did not respond to our request for one. However, we went to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) at the U.S. Department of Education, which is the primary source for education data in the U.S. We were told that there are three international assessments that measure U.S. student performance compared to those in other countries.

The first is the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which the NCES conducts in coordination with the OECD every three years in reading, math, and science for 15 year old students.

Out of 34 OECD countries, U.S. students in 2012 ranked 17th in reading literacy with an average score of 498, which was slightly above the OECD average of 496. The country with the highest average reading score was Japan with 538 and the lowest was Mexico at 424.

The U.S. was below average in math and science on the PISA, but it wasn’t last. The U.S. ranked 27th out of 34 countries in math with an average score of 481. The Republic of Korea ranked first (554 ) and Mexico was last (413). In science, the U.S. ranked 20th with an average score of 497. As with reading, Japan was tops (547) and Mexico was last (415).

The PISA 2012 test results are the most current. The 2015 test results will be released in December.

A second assessment of students is known as Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), which is given every four years to fourth- and eighth-grade students. U.S. 4th graders ranked 11th in math and seventh in science out of 50 countries in 2011, which is the most recent test results available. The U.S. eighth graders also scored above average in TIMSS, ranking 10th in science and 9th in math out of 42 countries. (The data can be found here.)

The executive summary of a report by the TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center in Massachusetts noted that the U.S. has improved between 1995 and 2011 in both fourth- and eighth-grade TIMSS tests (pages 7-8).

The third and final assessment we reviewed is known as the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), which is administered every five years to fourth-grade students. The U.S. had an average score of 556, and ranked sixth out of 45 countries that participated in the test. Hong Kong had the highest score at 571, and Morocco was last with 310.

By any measure, the U.S. was not “last in education.”

Not First in Spending, Either
Trump also was wrong about U.S. spending on education. It is true that on a per-pupil basis the U.S. spends far more than the OECD average, but Trump is wrong to say the U.S. spends “so much more per pupil” that “there is no second” place. The United States, in fact, spends the fourth highest on primary and secondary education.

The most recent NCES report on “education expenditures by country” relies on 2011 data from the OECD’s Education at a Glance 2014 report (table b1.2). The most recent OECD report – Education at a Glance 2015 – contains 2012 data, so we used that report to get the most up-to-date figures. The latest OECD report shows the U.S. spent $11,732 per full-time student in 2012 – behind Switzerland ($15,512), Norway ($13,611) and Austria ($12,164). (Technical note: Although Luxembourg ranked highest in spending, we excluded that country from our rankings because the NCES says that there are “anomalies in that country’s GDP per capita data.”)

OECD also measures education spending as a percentage of GDP. By that measure (table b2.1) the U.S. spent 3.6 percent of its GDP on primary and secondary education. That was 18th highest, tied with Chile and Canada, among 33 OECD member countries. New Zealand spent the most at 5 percent of GDP and Hungary the least at 2.6 percent.

Still Wrong
Trump also repeated other false claims that we have vetted before:

Trade deficit: Trump claimed that “we have a trade deficit with everybody.” After rattling off China, Mexico, Japan and Vietnam, Trump said, “If you name any country they’re beating us.” We wrote about this last month, when he said it in a debate, and what we said still holds: “The U.S. does run a deficit with all but three of its top 15 trading partners. But the fact is, contrary to Trump’s sweeping claim, the U.S. had positive trade balances last year with Brazil ($4 billion), Netherlands ($24 billion) and Belgium (nearly $15 billion). The U.S. also made money on trade last year with Singapore ($10 billion), Australia ($14 billion) and Argentina ($5 billion), just to cite a few more.”

Campaign funding: Trump once again claimed that he is beholden to no one because he is “self-funding” his campaign. That’s not accurate. We have written about this before when he made the same claim in the 9th, 10th and 12th debates. As of March 31, Trump has reported $49.3 million in total campaign receipts. Of that, 25 percent — or $12.2 million — has come from individual donors. Now, Trump has loaned his campaign $35.9 million, but by law his campaign can repay that loan if Trump decides to increase his fundraising. We’ll have to wait and see what he will do. To date, he has donated only $317,471 to his campaign.

Unemployment rate: Trump said, “The real job number is 20 percent or more. It’s not 5 percent. That [the official unemployment rate] was put in to make politicians look good. If you stop looking for a job. You’re looking, looking, looking — you stop looking they consider you statistically employed. OK?” We have written about this before, too. The official unemployment rate was 5 percent for March, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But BLS does have an alternative measure that it calls the “U-6″ measurement of labor underutilization, which would also include the people Trump said have stopped looking for work — the “marginally attached” (those who have given up looking for a job but had looked for one in the past year) and “discouraged workers” (a subset of the marginally attached who are not currently looking for work, citing market reasons). It also includes the underemployed (part-time workers wanting full-time work). That rate is currently 9.8 percent, not “20 percent or more.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/trumps-education-exaggeration/


bob1954 - 5/5/2016 at 02:36 PM

quote:
Love him, hate him.

Support his policies/positions or not.

I simply admire the fact he made it this far, in this day and age of politics and "the process."

Very few thought he would have made it this far.

Do you think it speaks well of the electorate?


gondicar - 5/5/2016 at 02:41 PM

quote:
Love him, hate him.

Support his policies/positions or not.

I simply admire the fact he made it this far, in this day and age of politics and "the process."

Very few thought he would have made it this far.



You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I don't find anything admirable about the Trump campaign.


gondicar - 5/5/2016 at 02:47 PM

I'm sure someone will disagree, but from where I sit The Economist is about as non-partisan as they come.

Trump’s triumph
Donald Trump’s victory is a disaster for Republicans and for America
May 7th 2016

DURING its 160-year history, the Republican Party has abolished slavery, provided the votes in Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act and helped bring the cold war to a close. The next six months will not be so glorious. After Indiana’s primary, it is now clear that Republicans will be led into the presidential election by a candidate who said he would kill the families of terrorists, has encouraged violence by his supporters, has a weakness for wild conspiracy theories and subscribes to a set of protectionist and economically illiterate policies that are by turns fantastical and self-harming.

The result could be disastrous for the Republican Party and, more important, for America. Even if this is as far as he goes, Mr Trump has already done real damage and will do more in the coming months. Worse, in a two-horse race his chances of winning the presidency are well above zero.

It is possible that, with the nomination secured, Mr Trump will now change his tone. The crassness of his insults may well be muted as he tries to win over at least some of the voters, particularly women, who now abhor him. His demeanour may become more presidential (though there was little sign of that in this week’s bizarre and baseless pronouncements that the father of Ted Cruz, his erstwhile rival, had been around Lee Harvey Oswald before he shot John F. Kennedy). What he will almost certainly not do is change political course. For it is increasingly clear that Mr Trump has elements of a world view from which he does not waver (see article). These beliefs lack coherence or much attachment to reality. They are woven together by a peculiarly 21st-century mastery of political communication, with a delight in conflict and disregard for facts, which his career in reality television has honed. But they are firm beliefs and long-held.

Full article: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21698251-donald-trumps-victory-disast er-republicans-and-america-trumps-triumph


Bhawk - 5/5/2016 at 03:25 PM

quote:
Love him, hate him.

Support his policies/positions or not.

I simply admire the fact he made it this far, in this day and age of politics and "the process."

Very few thought he would have made it this far.




I'm not surprised at all, haven't been since day one. The power of populism is stronger than ever before.

I'd like to see if any other candidate has ever received that kind of blanket wall-to-wall daily media coverage for free.

If the view is that Trump overcame some against-all-odds mountain, it didn't really shake out that way.


bob1954 - 5/5/2016 at 03:33 PM

quote:
It is possible that, with the nomination secured, Mr Trump will now change his tone. The crassness of his insults may well be muted as he tries to win over at least some of the voters, particularly women, who now abhor him.

Translation: He's going to have to change his tune if he wants to get normal people to vote for him.


Bhawk - 5/5/2016 at 04:40 PM

quote:
quote:
It is possible that, with the nomination secured, Mr Trump will now change his tone. The crassness of his insults may well be muted as he tries to win over at least some of the voters, particularly women, who now abhor him.

Translation: He's going to have to change his tune if he wants to get normal people to vote for him.


Prediction: He won't because he doesn't really have to change it that much.


2112 - 5/5/2016 at 04:59 PM

So now both Bush presidents, Romney and McCain have all said that they will not endorse Trump or even attend the GOP convention. I wonder if they will leave their ballot blank or if they will be voting for Hillary.

[Edited on 5/5/2016 by 2112]


bob1954 - 5/5/2016 at 05:03 PM

quote:
So now both Bush presidents, Romney and McCain have all said that they will not endorse Trump or even attend the GOP convention. I wonder if they will leave their ballot blank or if they will be voting for Hillary.

I don't know, but I hear the keynote speaker slot at the convention is open if anyone is interested.


Sang - 5/5/2016 at 05:26 PM

Maybe they can get the chair that debated Clint Eastwood?


OriginalGoober - 5/5/2016 at 05:46 PM

The republican party is reshaping and Bush, Romney, McCain, Lindsey Graham and many other RINOs are gasping their last breath as they will become marginalized if Trump defeats Hillary.


gondicar - 5/5/2016 at 05:53 PM

quote:
The republican party is reshaping and Bush, Romney, McCain, Lindsey Graham and many other RINOs are gasping their last breath as they will become marginalized if Trump defeats Hillary.

Trump isn't a RINO??? That's would be an odd assessment.


2112 - 5/5/2016 at 06:06 PM

quote:
quote:
The republican party is reshaping and Bush, Romney, McCain, Lindsey Graham and many other RINOs are gasping their last breath as they will become marginalized if Trump defeats Hillary.

Trump isn't a RINO??? That's would be an odd assessment.


Seems like Trump is as RINO as it gets. He made his fortune on the backs of taxpayer supported redevelopment dollars, gave is $hitload of $ to liberal politicians, and is as far from the values voter ideal as possible.


OriginalGoober - 5/5/2016 at 06:52 PM

Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years so i am confident he will use similar fiscal restraint when elected. He may be a lot of things including democratic leaning talking points on social issues but he is the most conservative on :

1) Immigration
2) Military
3) Economy
4) Foreign intervention


gondicar - 5/5/2016 at 07:08 PM

quote:
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years so i am confident he will use similar fiscal restraint when elected. He may be a lot of things including democratic leaning talking points on social issues but he is the most conservative on :

1) Immigration
2) Military
3) Economy
4) Foreign intervention



Wow, that's an interesting take. Seems to help make my earlier point that his supporters will latch on to whatever rhetoric that he puts out there that they find appealing and turn a blind eye to all the false narratives and inconsistent words/actions between candidate Trump and businessman Trump.

Basically he is saying what it takes to get republicans (at least some of them) to support him even when the words are not supported by his actions over the past 30 or 40 years, like the leopard has suddenly changed his spots...to me that is textbook RINO (especially since he has no voting record to judge him on).


Bhawk - 5/5/2016 at 07:39 PM

quote:
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years


Why was that? It's a valid question.

Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.


Bhawk - 5/5/2016 at 07:42 PM

quote:
He may be a lot of things including democratic leaning talking points on social issues but he is the most conservative on :

1) Immigration
2) Military
3) Economy
4) Foreign intervention


Split response on purpose. Isn't a re-spun campaign promise still just a campaign promise?


gondicar - 5/6/2016 at 12:20 PM

quote:
quote:
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years


Why was that? It's a valid question.

Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.

Exactly. Being "confident he will use similar fiscal restraint when elected" because of his campaign spend is about as naive a statement as I have ever seen here. Trump has consistently received more media coverage than any other candidate in this election and maybe ever, and he spent less on advertising because of it. It has nothing to do with needing or wanting to be frugal.



[Edited on 5/6/2016 by gondicar]


BoytonBrother - 5/6/2016 at 01:06 PM

I recently got a job transfer to a different department w/in my company, and it involved intense training on a new program. They estimated that it should take about 6 months to learn with the training they provided. The staffers that were assigned to train me were experts in their field, but they were the worst teachers on the planet. I excelled in school. I learn very well in a classroom setting, where I can focus, take notes, and receive quality explanations. But teaching is a science, and being an expert on something does not mean you can teach it. They could not teach it, period. It was a mess, with random info being scattered about, speaking to us in a technical language that we didn't yet know. They ended up digging a hole for us, and we had to learn it ourselves and dig ourselves out of it. It got to the point where several of us almost quit or got fired. What's the point?

It has occurred to me, while observing our entire political landscape, left and right, that education truly is the single most important issue in our country. We have a below average education system. Our schools are filled w/ "teachers" like my co-workers. I sympathize with the children who have to suffer trying to learn from a horrible teacher. It's a major problem. I believe troubled children stem from both poor parenting and a poor educational program. A good teacher who can actually teach, will end up showing children that there is a clear path to a great life, and inspire them to chase it. Poor teachers end up frustrating their students, making them think they are dumb to the point where they say "F it", and they give up. Those frustrations at home and school lead to anger, hatred, and prejudices, and a Trump presidency.

Moving forward, I will vote for any politician who makes education their #1 priority.....not one of their priorities, but their #1.


bob1954 - 5/6/2016 at 01:10 PM

quote:
Moving forward, I will vote for any politician who makes education their #1 priority.....not one of their priorities, but their #1.

Good luck finding one. Maybe at the local level, but not likely at the national level.


DougMacKenzie - 5/6/2016 at 01:22 PM

quote:

It has occurred to me, while observing our entire political landscape, left and right, that education truly is the single most important issue in our country. We have a below average education system. Our schools are filled w/ "teachers" like my co-workers. I sympathize with the children who have to suffer trying to learn from a horrible teacher. It's a major problem. I believe troubled children stem from both poor parenting and a poor educational program. A good teacher who can actually teach, will end up showing children that there is a clear path to a great life, and inspire them to chase it. Poor teachers end up frustrating their students, making them think they are dumb to the point where they say "F it", and they give up. Those frustrations at home and school lead to anger, hatred, and prejudices, and a Trump presidency.


As a teacher I could not agree with this more. I did not "grow up" in the educational system, having not moved into teaching until I was almost 50. First thing I observed is that most classroom teachers are not removed from reality, they've never been there. Administrators are way worse, and most couldn't find their a$$e$ with both hands. Standardized testing is a joke. The lack of discipline is abhorrent. Classroom instruction for 30 or more kids per class is by necessity reduced to expectations for the bare minimum, and teachers spend at least one third of their time teaching to the standardized tests. The vocabulary of most high school students is so limited it will blow your mind, and if they can't google it or use a calculator they are completely lost. Education as a business has sucked the life out of learning. Without a total revamping of the system I don't see how we turn anything around, no matter who is president.


BoytonBrother - 5/6/2016 at 01:59 PM

dougmac, that's a shame to hear, but I'm glad there are people like you in the system who can hopefully make a difference on some level. If you redirect just one kid from the wrong path to the right path, then it's all worth it.

I just can't fathom how our leaders locally and nationally can allow this to happen within our schools. It seems obvious that the one position that should be vetted the most is a teacher. We could easily revamp everything and make teachers one of the most coveted positions out there, but it would require our leaders to fund it as a top priority, and sadly it just isn't. Even sadder is that I hope the reason that it isn't a priority is due to incompetence. I'd hate to believe they intentionally keep it that way to solidify social classes.

Social media has really exposed this failure. It's amazing to see what some people post for the world to see, and be proud of it!


Bhawk - 5/6/2016 at 02:29 PM

It's cooler to be stupid than smart. "Nerd" was an insult for decades. At one point, Beavis and Butthead were at the top of pop culture.

But, hey, let's not let parenting off the hook here. Parents and teachers were once partners, now they are adversaries.


DougMacKenzie - 5/6/2016 at 07:06 PM

quote:

But, hey, let's not let parenting off the hook here. Parents and teachers were once partners, now they are adversaries.

And in a big way. Not only that. but administrators and teachers are also adversaries, since administrators don't want any negative feedback or complaints from parents. And they don't want to get involved with discipline issues, so rarely back the teachers, instead insisting teachers "take care of discipline issues in the classroom." It's a total mess. If the general public really knew what was going on they'f go ballistic. There is hope though. Teacher shortages are already reaching critical mass in places like California and Oklahoma, and are spreading.


gondicar - 5/6/2016 at 07:27 PM

quote:
quote:

But, hey, let's not let parenting off the hook here. Parents and teachers were once partners, now they are adversaries.

And in a big way. Not only that. but administrators and teachers are also adversaries, since administrators don't want any negative feedback or complaints from parents. And they don't want to get involved with discipline issues, so rarely back the teachers, instead insisting teachers "take care of discipline issues in the classroom." It's a total mess. If the general public really knew what was going on they'f go ballistic. There is hope though. Teacher shortages are already reaching critical mass in places like California and Oklahoma, and are spreading.

We (wife and I) saw this up close and personal at the beginning of this school year...we had to go head to head with an incompetent/abusive teacher, lying department head and disinterested administrator. As soon as we hired a lawyer their tune changed completely, but the damage was done and any trust/faith we had in them was over. The situation is much better now, but it was a very disheartening experience.


DougMacKenzie - 5/7/2016 at 12:39 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:

But, hey, let's not let parenting off the hook here. Parents and teachers were once partners, now they are adversaries.

And in a big way. Not only that. but administrators and teachers are also adversaries, since administrators don't want any negative feedback or complaints from parents. And they don't want to get involved with discipline issues, so rarely back the teachers, instead insisting teachers "take care of discipline issues in the classroom." It's a total mess. If the general public really knew what was going on they'f go ballistic. There is hope though. Teacher shortages are already reaching critical mass in places like California and Oklahoma, and are spreading.

We (wife and I) saw this up close and personal at the beginning of this school year...we had to go head to head with an incompetent/abusive teacher, lying department head and disinterested administrator. As soon as we hired a lawyer their tune changed completely, but the damage was done and any trust/faith we had in them was over. The situation is much better now, but it was a very disheartening experience.

Sadly gondi your experience is completely typical. Especially in SPED, teachers, diagnoticians, and admins will bully parents all over thge place and nake decisions best for the school and district at the expense of a child. Bring in a lawyer and suddenly they;re all about the children.


gondicar - 5/9/2016 at 05:04 PM

Trump flip flops again...stay tuned he'll probably say something completely different next week...


Donald Trump Flips His Position on Minimum Wage Yet Again
By Tom McKay May 08, 2016

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee and real estate billionaire Donald Trump flipped his position on minimum wage again on Sunday.

In an interview on NBC's Meet the Press, Trump told host Chuck Todd he had traveled the country, met with thousands of voters, and now has "seen what's going on. And I don't know how people make it on $7.25 an hour."

"Now, with that being said, I would like to see an increase of some magnitude," he continued. "But I'd rather leave it to the states. Let the states decide. Because don't forget, the states have to compete with each other."

Todd asked whether the federal government should ensure a minimum wage "floor" (such as the current federal minimum wage of $7.25), Trump responded "No, I'd rather have the states go out and do what they have to do. And the states compete with each other, not only other countries, but they compete with each other, Chuck. So I like the idea of let the states decide."

To summarize: Trump said he would like workers to be paid more, but also that he will leave the matter to the states, and also that this whole federal minimum wage thing is maybe kind of a misguided idea anyhow.

In other words, he's advocating doing nothing on the federal minimum wage as president.

But Trump still wants U.S. workers to make more money (perhaps from all that unprecedented economic growth he said will happen under his presidency). It's a full reversal from his position on wages last year, when he said U.S. workers make too much money for the U.S. to be internationally competitive, and later explicitly clarified he was referring to the federal minimum wage, which he said should not be raised.

So, ultimately, Trump is all over the place on this issue.

But consistency is not necessarily what Trump is aiming for — malleable positions are, by his own admission, part of his supposed strategy.

In another interview the same day on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Trump addressed the seeming disconnect, saying he supports bringing back well-paying jobs rather than raising the minimum wage and insisting his planned tax cuts will bring back money to the average worker. He also portrayed many of his official policy positions as starting points for future negotiations with Democrats in Congress — negotiations necessary to reach those great deals Trump keeps on promising.

"I'm allowed to change," Trump said. "You need flexibility, George, whether it's a tax plan, where you're going — where you know you're going to negotiate. But we're going to come up with something. But my real minimum wage is going to be — I'm going to bring companies back into this country, and they're going to make a lot more than the $15 even ... that's what I want to do."


gondicar - 5/10/2016 at 12:25 PM

Trump can be specific when he wants to be.


gondicar - 5/10/2016 at 04:29 PM

As I have been saying all along, Trump's ignorant anti-Muslim rhetoric and policy proposals are playing right into the hands of extremists...

Newly elected London mayor slams Trump’s ‘ignorant’ view of Islam
Sadiq Khan says the presumptive Republican presidential nominee risks 'alienating mainstream Muslims around the world and plays into the hands of the extremists.' Newly elected London mayor slams Trump’s ‘ignorant’ view of Islam

By JILL LAWLESSThe Associated Press

LONDON — London Mayor Sadiq Khan on Tuesday slammed Donald Trump’s “ignorant” view of Islam, after the Republican presidential contender suggested Khan could be exempted from a proposed temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States.

Last year Trump proposed “a total and complete” ban on foreign Muslims entering the U.S. “until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”

Asked how that policy would affect London’s first Muslim mayor, Trump told The New York Times that “there will always be exceptions.”

But Khan said “this isn’t just about me – it’s about my friends, my family and everyone who comes from a background similar to mine, anywhere in the world.”

“Donald Trump’s ignorant view of Islam could make both our countries less safe – it risks alienating mainstream Muslims around the world and plays into the hands of the extremists,” Khan said in a statement.

Khan, the London-born son of Pakistani immigrants, was elected last week by a wide margin after a campaign that saw his Conservative rival Zac Goldsmith accuse him of having shared platforms with Islamic extremists.

Khan, a former human rights lawyer and Labour Party lawmaker, accused Goldsmith of trying to frighten and divide voters in a multicultural city of 8.6 million people – more than 1 million of them Muslims.

In his victory speech, Khan said the result marked the triumph of “hope over fear and unity over division.”

The mayor said Tuesday that Trump and people who agree with him “think that western liberal values are incompatible with mainstream Islam – London has proved him wrong.”

Trump said he was “happy to see” Khan’s election and hoped “he does a good job.”

The mayor declined to lend Trump his support.

“I’ll be backing the Democratic candidate – Hillary Clinton, who I suspect it will be – and I hope that she trounces him,” Khan told the BBC.


heineken515 - 5/10/2016 at 04:36 PM

Goodness gracious, we must not alienate the extremists, because that would be wrong.


gondicar - 5/10/2016 at 04:44 PM

quote:
Goodness gracious, we must not alienate the extremists, because that would be wrong.

What?? Who's talking about alienating the extremists? Not the article I just posted.


heineken515 - 5/10/2016 at 04:49 PM

Oops, you are right, I apologize, I misread.

But speaking of alienation, nothing like some inconsequential mayor of a foreign city alienating a large number of the electorate here by saying what he did.


bob1954 - 5/10/2016 at 05:16 PM

quote:
...nothing like some inconsequential mayor of a foreign city alienating a large number of the electorate here by saying what he did.

Your right, he's just the mayor of the largest city of our strongest ally. Eff 'em.


heineken515 - 5/10/2016 at 05:25 PM

quote:
quote:
...nothing like some inconsequential mayor of a foreign city alienating a large number of the electorate here by saying what he did.

Your right, he's just the mayor of the largest city of our strongest ally. Eff 'em.


I'm no expert like you perhaps, but the Mayor of London hardly seems important to this country at all.

Without looking it up, can you name any of the previous Mayor's ?


Bhawk - 5/10/2016 at 05:32 PM

quote:
Oops, you are right, I apologize, I misread.

But speaking of alienation, nothing like some inconsequential mayor of a foreign city alienating a large number of the electorate here by saying what he did.


What exactly did he say that will alienate a large number of the electorate?


heineken515 - 5/10/2016 at 05:39 PM

quote:
What exactly did he say that will alienate a large number of the electorate?


The last line of the article, use of the word trounce, defined as defeat severely, thrash, punish, not to mention this comment coming from a foreigner - especially since according the same article Trump had nothing but nice things to say about him.


bob1954 - 5/10/2016 at 05:50 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
...nothing like some inconsequential mayor of a foreign city alienating a large number of the electorate here by saying what he did.

Your right, he's just the mayor of the largest city of our strongest ally. Eff 'em.


I'm no expert like you perhaps, but the Mayor of London hardly seems important to this country at all.

Without looking it up, can you name any of the previous Mayor's ?

What is this, a test? Certainly you are not so obtuse that you don't realize this is an indicator of how Trump's preposterous policy proposal is perceived. And this is just one example. If you give no credence to what foreign leaders think there are certainly plenty of examples of U.S. leaders expressing similar sentiments.

And, by the way, if the Mayor of London is so inconsequential then why would Trump make an exception in his case? And if he's willing to make exceptions then why have the policy? The only reason Trump ever mentioned this in the first place was to exploit fear and appeal to the base instincts of simpleminded voters.

[Edited on 5/10/2016 by bob1954]


Bhawk - 5/10/2016 at 05:50 PM

quote:
quote:
What exactly did he say that will alienate a large number of the electorate?


The last line of the article, use of the word trounce, defined as defeat severely, thrash, punish, not to mention this comment coming from a foreigner - especially since according the same article Trump had nothing but nice things to say about him.


He hopes that Hillary trounces Trump in the election and that bothers you? Is the mayor consequential or not?


alloak41 - 5/10/2016 at 05:58 PM

quote:
quote:
Love him, hate him.

Support his policies/positions or not.

I simply admire the fact he made it this far, in this day and age of politics and "the process."

Very few thought he would have made it this far.



You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I don't find anything admirable about the Trump campaign.


He wins.


heineken515 - 5/10/2016 at 06:00 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
What exactly did he say that will alienate a large number of the electorate?


The last line of the article, use of the word trounce, defined as defeat severely, thrash, punish, not to mention this comment coming from a foreigner - especially since according the same article Trump had nothing but nice things to say about him.


He hopes that Hillary trounces Trump in the election and that bothers you? Is the mayor consequential or not?




Nope doesn't bother me, I could care less what this guy thinks.

I'm saying that there are a lot of Trump supporters/voters - "electorate" that will be offended by an inconsequential mayor of a foreign city wading into this and using that tone.

The only reason this guy is in the news is because of his religion and the fact that he just won an election, otherwise the Mayor of London has little to no bearing on any of this.

Wonder what the Mayor of Lisbon thinks ? Does Lisbon even have a mayor?


Bhawk - 5/10/2016 at 06:04 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
What exactly did he say that will alienate a large number of the electorate?


The last line of the article, use of the word trounce, defined as defeat severely, thrash, punish, not to mention this comment coming from a foreigner - especially since according the same article Trump had nothing but nice things to say about him.


He hopes that Hillary trounces Trump in the election and that bothers you? Is the mayor consequential or not?




Nope doesn't bother me, I could care less what this guy thinks.

I'm saying that there are a lot of Trump supporters/voters - "electorate" that will be offended by an inconsequential mayor of a foreign city wading into this and using that tone.

The only reason this guy is in the news is because of his religion and the fact that he just won an election, otherwise the Mayor of London has little to no bearing on any of this.

Wonder what the Mayor of Lisbon thinks ? Does Lisbon even have a mayor?




He's in the news because someone asked Trump about him, and Trump referred to him as an "exception."

How dare anyone defile The Great Trump!


Swifty - 5/10/2016 at 06:30 PM

quote:
Oops, you are right, I apologize, I misread.

But speaking of alienation, nothing like some inconsequential mayor of a foreign city alienating a large number of the electorate here by saying what he did.


Hardy that really foreign if you look at the level of British influence in American life. God, the mini skirt was invented in London! The Rolling Stones are a London band. Trump's been playing a lot of Stones songs, which if you think of it are London songs.


bob1954 - 5/10/2016 at 06:54 PM

quote:
The Rolling Stones are a London band. Trump's been playing a lot of Stones songs, which if you think of it are London songs.

Not anymore. The Stones told him to stop.


gondicar - 5/10/2016 at 07:24 PM

quote:
Oops, you are right, I apologize, I misread.

But speaking of alienation, nothing like some inconsequential mayor of a foreign city alienating a large number of the electorate here by saying what he did.

Good attempt as flipping the conversation. Not quite as good as the old pro alloak, but not bad.


gondicar - 5/10/2016 at 07:26 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Love him, hate him.

Support his policies/positions or not.

I simply admire the fact he made it this far, in this day and age of politics and "the process."

Very few thought he would have made it this far.



You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I don't find anything admirable about the Trump campaign.


He wins.

And you admire every politician who wins? Right.


heineken515 - 5/10/2016 at 07:29 PM

quote:
quote:
Oops, you are right, I apologize, I misread.

But speaking of alienation, nothing like some inconsequential mayor of a foreign city alienating a large number of the electorate here by saying what he did.

Good attempt as flipping the conversation. Not quite as good as the old pro alloak, but not bad.


I apologized and stated I misread the article.

Who is this alloak you speak of?


alloak41 - 5/10/2016 at 08:08 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Love him, hate him.

Support his policies/positions or not.

I simply admire the fact he made it this far, in this day and age of politics and "the process."

Very few thought he would have made it this far.



You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I don't find anything admirable about the Trump campaign.


He wins.

And you admire every politician who wins? Right.


Alas, who I admire is not the issue.

I


gondicar - 5/10/2016 at 10:46 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Love him, hate him.

Support his policies/positions or not.

I simply admire the fact he made it this far, in this day and age of politics and "the process."

Very few thought he would have made it this far.



You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I don't find anything admirable about the Trump campaign.


He wins.

And you admire every politician who wins? Right.


Alas, who I admire is not the issue.

I

Oh, ok. No one said it is, but I thought you were joining our discussion about our opinions on Trump's admirability. I guess you are trying to change the subject to something else.


alloak41 - 5/11/2016 at 12:24 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Love him, hate him.

Support his policies/positions or not.

I simply admire the fact he made it this far, in this day and age of politics and "the process."

Very few thought he would have made it this far.



You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I don't find anything admirable about the Trump campaign.


He wins.

And you admire every politician who wins? Right.


Alas, who I admire is not the issue.

I

Oh, ok. No one said it is, but I thought you were joining our discussion about our opinions on Trump's admirability. I guess you are trying to change the subject to something else.


How?


gondicar - 5/20/2016 at 12:19 PM


gina - 5/20/2016 at 10:26 PM

He's been endorsed by the NRA who feels that he will defend our Constitutional Right to bear arms.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/nra-endorses-trump/ar-BBthQ8G?form=P RHPTP


CB - 5/20/2016 at 10:40 PM

He also said that Hillary Clinton would overturn the Second Amendment.

Neither the President nor the Supreme Court can overturn the Consititution. Only an Amendment passed by Congress and not vetoed by the Presidnet can do that.


bob1954 - 5/20/2016 at 11:01 PM

quote:
He also said that Hillary Clinton would overturn the Second Amendment.

Neither the President nor the Supreme Court can overturn the Consititution. Only an Amendment passed by Congress and not vetoed by the Presidnet can do that.

A constitutional amendment is proposed by congress and must be ratified by 3/4's of the states. The President is not part of the process. But I think the point is that the President, Supreme Court, and Congress all have the an ability to affect the practical application of the Constitution through executive orders, judicial rulings, or legislation.


CB - 5/20/2016 at 11:25 PM

My point is that no one single person regardless of office or branch of government can do it unilaterally.


BoytonBrother - 5/21/2016 at 12:00 AM

If you support Trump, don't complain if a loved one is abused verbally or physically by some thug. You asked for it when you casted your vote for Trump. You want anger and hostility from the President, then expect it from his fellow citizens.


LeglizHemp - 5/21/2016 at 12:08 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/20/politics/trump-veterans-6-million-not-raised/ index.html

Trump campaign admits it did not raise $6 million for veterans


2112 - 5/21/2016 at 01:35 AM

quote:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/20/politics/trump-veterans-6-million-not-r aised/index.html

Trump campaign admits it did not raise $6 million for veterans



I'm just wondering if there is a single thing he hasn't lied about?


gondicar - 5/23/2016 at 04:45 PM


bob1954 - 5/23/2016 at 09:04 PM

quote:
quote:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/20/politics/trump-veterans-6-million -not-raised/index.html

Trump campaign admits it did not raise $6 million for veterans


I'm just wondering if there is a single thing he hasn't lied about?

It doesn't matter.


alloak41 - 5/24/2016 at 03:06 PM

quote:
If you support Trump, don't complain if a loved one is abused verbally or physically by some thug. You asked for it when you casted your vote for Trump. You want anger and hostility from the President, then expect it from his fellow citizens.


So if we elect Hillary Clinton, all the abuse from thugs will stop?


gondicar - 5/24/2016 at 03:12 PM

quote:
quote:
If you support Trump, don't complain if a loved one is abused verbally or physically by some thug. You asked for it when you casted your vote for Trump. You want anger and hostility from the President, then expect it from his fellow citizens.


So if we elect Hillary Clinton, all the abuse from thugs will stop?

Thugs are thugs. Trumps makes them feel empowered and electing someone else will certainly change that dynamic but you'd have to be incredibly naive to think "all the abuse" will stop no matter who is elected POTUS. But I'm pretty sure you already know that.


alloak41 - 5/24/2016 at 03:17 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
If you support Trump, don't complain if a loved one is abused verbally or physically by some thug. You asked for it when you casted your vote for Trump. You want anger and hostility from the President, then expect it from his fellow citizens.


So if we elect Hillary Clinton, all the abuse from thugs will stop?

Thugs are thugs. Trumps makes them feel empowered and electing someone else will certainly change that dynamic but you'd have to be incredibly naive to think "all the abuse" will stop no matter who is elected POTUS. But I'm pretty sure you already know that.


Do you have any hard evidence that proves what's on the mind of thugs and their level of empowerment?

My credit card debt doubled over the last seven years. I'm not complaining though, Obama has been the President so it's his fault.


gondicar - 5/24/2016 at 03:51 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
If you support Trump, don't complain if a loved one is abused verbally or physically by some thug. You asked for it when you casted your vote for Trump. You want anger and hostility from the President, then expect it from his fellow citizens.


So if we elect Hillary Clinton, all the abuse from thugs will stop?

Thugs are thugs. Trumps makes them feel empowered and electing someone else will certainly change that dynamic but you'd have to be incredibly naive to think "all the abuse" will stop no matter who is elected POTUS. But I'm pretty sure you already know that.


Do you have any hard evidence that proves what's on the mind of thugs and their level of empowerment?

My credit card debt doubled over the last seven years. I'm not complaining though, Obama has been the President so it's his fault.

The "hard evidence" has been hard to miss for the last 7 or 8 months or so.

You credit card debt comment is just bizarre.


alloak41 - 5/24/2016 at 09:17 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
If you support Trump, don't complain if a loved one is abused verbally or physically by some thug. You asked for it when you casted your vote for Trump. You want anger and hostility from the President, then expect it from his fellow citizens.


So if we elect Hillary Clinton, all the abuse from thugs will stop?

Thugs are thugs. Trumps makes them feel empowered and electing someone else will certainly change that dynamic but you'd have to be incredibly naive to think "all the abuse" will stop no matter who is elected POTUS. But I'm pretty sure you already know that.


Do you have any hard evidence that proves what's on the mind of thugs and their level of empowerment?

My credit card debt doubled over the last seven years. I'm not complaining though, Obama has been the President so it's his fault.

The "hard evidence" has been hard to miss for the last 7 or 8 months or so.

You credit card debt comment is just bizarre.


As are unsubstantiated thug alerts. As if that kind of propaganda is liable to sway any votes, six or seven maybe?


BoytonBrother - 5/24/2016 at 11:11 PM

Alloak, Hillary will bring plenty of problems, but inciting violence won't be one of them.


gondicar - 5/24/2016 at 11:13 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
If you support Trump, don't complain if a loved one is abused verbally or physically by some thug. You asked for it when you casted your vote for Trump. You want anger and hostility from the President, then expect it from his fellow citizens.


So if we elect Hillary Clinton, all the abuse from thugs will stop?

Thugs are thugs. Trumps makes them feel empowered and electing someone else will certainly change that dynamic but you'd have to be incredibly naive to think "all the abuse" will stop no matter who is elected POTUS. But I'm pretty sure you already know that.


Do you have any hard evidence that proves what's on the mind of thugs and their level of empowerment?

My credit card debt doubled over the last seven years. I'm not complaining though, Obama has been the President so it's his fault.

The "hard evidence" has been hard to miss for the last 7 or 8 months or so.

You credit card debt comment is just bizarre.


As are unsubstantiated thug alerts. As if that kind of propaganda is liable to sway any votes, six or seven maybe?

Thug alerts? Propaganda? What are you talking about?


alloak41 - 5/24/2016 at 11:27 PM

quote:
]If you support Trump, don't complain if a loved one is ally by some thug. You asked for it when you casted your vote for Trump. You want anger and hostility from the President, then expect it from his fellow citizens.


So if we elect Hillary Clinton, all the abuse from thugs will stop?

Thugs are thugs. Trumps makes them feel empowered and electing someone else will certainly change that dynamic but you'd have to be incredibly naive to think "all the abuse" will stop no matter who is elected POTUS. But I'm pretty sure you already know that.


Do you have any hard evidence that proves what's on the mind of thugs and their level of empowerment?

My credit card debt doubled over the last seven years. I'm not complaining though, Obama has been the President so it's his fault.

The "hard evidence" has been hard to miss for the last 7 or 8 months or so.

You credit card debt comment is just bizarre.


As are unsubstantiated thug alerts. As if that kind of propaganda is liable to sway any votes, six or seven maybe?


Thug alerts? Propaganda? What are you talking about?


I've thought it over. I'm voting for Hillary. If Trump got elected thugs would come unglued. He empowers them and I'm scared.


Jerry - 5/24/2016 at 11:48 PM

quote:
quote:
]If you support Trump, don't complain if a loved one is ally by some thug. You asked for it when you casted your vote for Trump. You want anger and hostility from the President, then expect it from his fellow citizens.


So if we elect Hillary Clinton, all the abuse from thugs will stop?

Thugs are thugs. Trumps makes them feel empowered and electing someone else will certainly change that dynamic but you'd have to be incredibly naive to think "all the abuse" will stop no matter who is elected POTUS. But I'm pretty sure you already know that.


Do you have any hard evidence that proves what's on the mind of thugs and their level of empowerment?

My credit card debt doubled over the last seven years. I'm not complaining though, Obama has been the President so it's his fault.

The "hard evidence" has been hard to miss for the last 7 or 8 months or so.

You credit card debt comment is just bizarre.


As are unsubstantiated thug alerts. As if that kind of propaganda is liable to sway any votes, six or seven maybe?


Thug alerts? Propaganda? What are you talking about?


I've thought it over. I'm voting for Hillary. If Trump got elected thugs would come unglued. He empowers them and I'm scared.


Not me, I'm an ABC voter.


BoytonBrother - 5/25/2016 at 12:00 AM

Alloak, your Hillary response to my post indicates you may not have understood it. It wasn't about Hillary - I don't see any value with her either. But if there are a few ticking time bombs teetering on the brink, Trump's rhetoric could set one of them off. Would it be Trumps fault? No, but he's sure not taking advantage of any opportunities to prevent it by telling his supporters to punch people in the face and he'll pay the legal bills. Hillary's corruption will bring other problems, but inciting violence isn't one of them.


gondicar - 5/25/2016 at 11:45 AM

Donald Trump Scammed $150,000 From A 9/11 Relief Fund

Presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump, who claims to be worth $10 Billion (though recent reports suggest that could be as "little" as $150 Million), put money well ahead of the country he plans to make great again during her darkest hour when he took $150,000 earmarked by Congress for small businesses devastated by the 9/11 attacks.

Read the whole sordid story at Reverb Press HERE: http://bit.ly/1Vge9qH


LeglizHemp - 5/25/2016 at 12:49 PM

Heres Donald Trump, Lying His Orange Face Off About Donations To Vets

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-vets-donations_us_57448908 e4b0613b512b6131

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/24/four-months -later-donald-trump-says-he-gave-1-million-to-veterans-group/

[Edited on 5/25/2016 by LeglizHemp]


gondicar - 5/26/2016 at 02:19 PM

More lies from The Donald...

Trumps Misleading Attack on Martinez
By Robert Farley
Posted on May 25, 2016

Donald Trump took several verbal jabs at Republican New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez after she declined to attend his rally in Albuquerque. But his criticism of her effort to keep Syrian refugees out of New Mexico was way off base.

Trump wrongly claimed that Syrian refugees are being relocated in large numbers to New Mexico. Only 10 Syrian refugees have been relocated to New Mexico while Martinez has served as governor.

Trump also missed the mark when he boasted that if I was governor the resettlement of Syrian refugees in New Mexico wouldnt be happening. Governors have no legal authority to bar refugees from relocation to their state, as those who have tried found out. The resettlement process is guided by federal law.

Trumps barbs at Martinez, who is chairwoman of the Republican Governors Association, came after the governor declined to attend Trumps first New Mexico campaign event in Albuquerque on May 24. Martinez, the nations first Hispanic female governor, has criticized some of Trumps immigration remarks and has, according to the Albuquerque Journal, been noncommittal as to whether she will support him.

According to the Journal, when asked why she was not attending, she said she was really busy. So in his speech, Trump took the opportunity to opine that Martinez is not doing the job.

Trump, May. 24: Now heres a beauty that youre gonna all love. Syrian refugees are being relocated in large numbers to New Mexico. If I was governor, that wouldnt be happening. I couldnt care less. They say the governors have no choice. If Im governor, I have a choice, OK? Believe me.

For starters, there has not been a large number of Syrian refugees relocated to New Mexico.

According to statistics from the State Departments Refugee Processing Center, there have been 2,540 Syrian refugees relocated in the U.S. from the start of the fiscal year that began Oct. 1 to May 24. Just four of them were relocated to New Mexico. Over that period, New Mexico ranked tied for 33rd among states in the number of Syrian refugees relocated.

In fact, over the entirety of Martinezs term as governor, which began at the start of 2011, a total of 4,421 Syrian refugees arrived in the U.S., and just 10 of them were relocated in New Mexico.

New Mexico is actually a state with very little refugee resettlement, said Matthew Soerens, a spokesman for World Relief, one of the nine resettlement agencies that help to relocate refugees from all over the world in the U.S.

In other words, Trumps claim that large numbers of Syrian refugees have been relocated to New Mexico under Martinezs watch is wrong.
If I was governor, that wouldnt be happening.

Experts tell is Trump is also off base with his boast that as a governor he could have stopped Syrian refugees from entering his state.

The Refugee Act of 1980 makes clear that the federal government has the responsibility for determining who is to be admitted as a refugee, Soerens told us via email.

While more than 30 governors said last year that they oppose letting Syrian refugees into their states, and several vowed to prohibit it, none followed through or had any success.

For example, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signed an order in November that sought to stop the resettlement of Syrian refugees in his state. Specifically, the executive order attempted to stop state agencies from being involved in accepting refugees. But Deal later rescinded that order after the states Attorney General released an opinion in which he said he was unaware of any law or agreement that would permit a state to carve out refugees from particular countries from participation in the refugee resettlement program, no matter how well-intended or justified the desire to carve out such refugees might be.

Accordingly, it is my official opinion that both federal law and the States agreement to act as the state refugee resettlement coordinator prevent the State from denying federally-funded benefits to Syrian refugees lawfully admitted into the United States, Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens wrote.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott also vowed to legally challenge the federal law, after announcing in November that his state would not accept any Syrian refugees. But a federal judge denied the Texas Attorney Generals request for a temporary injunction to block the resettlement of Syrian refugees in Texas.

The Court does not deny that the Syrian refugees pose some risk. That would be foolish, U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey wrote in February. In our country, however, it is the federal executive that is charged with assessing and mitigating that risk, not the states and not the courts.

As those cases make clear, Soerens said, If Mr. Trump intends to abide by the law and submit to the authority of our court system, he would not have a choice as governor to halt resettlement.

Added Kevin Appleby, senior director of international migration policy at the Center for Migration Studies: The law is pretty clear that the federal government has the power, once a refugee has been accepted, to resettle them anywhere in the U.S.

And despite the rhetoric, threats and best efforts of some governors strongly opposed to resettlement of Syrian refugees, Stacie Blake, director of government and community relations for the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, told us that the U.S. refugee program has continued unabated. She said, The program [including for Syrian refugees] is proceeding as it always has. There has been no slow-down due to any of the statements or actions of any of the governors. (You can read more about the resettlement process in a story we wrote in November debunking Trumps claim that Syrian refugees are steered to Republican states.)

American University law professor Stephen I. Vladeck told us the governors bold prohibitions against accepting Syrian refugees in their states was a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

States have absolutely zero legal authority to refuse to allow refugees already admitted into the United States into their jurisdiction, specifically, regardless of their purported justification, Vladeck told us via email. And if a state is specifically barring refugees of particular national origin, race, or religious belief, then that policy is doubly unconstitutional on both federalism and individual rights grounds.

After Trump made his statements about Martinez, her press secretary Mike Lonergan, released a statement saying that Martinez will not be bullied into supporting a candidate until she is convinced that candidate will fight for New Mexicans. Lonergan also noted that Martinez has strongly opposed the Presidents Syrian refugee plan.

Last November, after the ISIS attacks in Paris, Martinez released a statement opposing President Obamas plan to accept more Syrian refugees until there is a very clear plan in place to properly vet and place the refugees, and the voices of governors and the public can be heard. Martinezs press office noted that Martinezs position was criticized by the mayor of Santa Fe, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Trump campaign did not respond to our request for clarification of his comments. Trump may argue that he would have done more to try to stop relocation of Syrian refugees. But he cant say that wouldnt be happening, because the law and federal courts say otherwise.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/trumps-misleading-attack-on-martinez/


gondicar - 5/26/2016 at 02:23 PM

And there's more!!

Trumps Employee Exaggeration in Jersey
By Eugene Kiely
Posted on May 25, 2016

Donald Trump told an audience in New Jersey that he has more employees than almost anybody in New Jersey. Thats nonsense. He used to own Trump Entertainment Resorts, one of the states top 100 employers, but he lost control of it in bankruptcy.

He still owns three golf courses in the state, but their combined payrolls cannot compare with the 40,000 workers employed by Wakefern Food Corp., the states top employer, according to the most recent annual employer survey by New Jersey Business magazine.

Trump made his remarks at a campaign event in Lawrenceville, New Jersey, after being introduced by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. He talked with pride about winning the New York primary because fellow New Yorkers know him best. New Jerseyans know him just as well, he said, because he employs so many of them. (At the 18:16 minute mark of the C-Span video.)

Trump, May 19: Do you know how many employees right now I have? I am paying so many people, I have so many employees in New Jersey I hate to think about it. I have to be honest. OK? I am taking care of more education, and more salaries and more health care than anybody probably, Chris, than almost anybody in New Jersey, right?

The Trump campaign didnt respond when we asked how many people Trump now employs in New Jersey. But theres plenty of evidence that Trump is not among the top employers in New Jersey. His casino empire collapsed. He owns no luxury residential buildings or hotels in New Jersey. All he owns in New Jersey are three golf courses, according to Newarks The Star-Ledgers timeline of Trumps holdings in New Jersey over the last 30 years.

Trump once owned Trump Entertainment Resorts, which for years has been listed among New Jerseys top 100 companies by New Jersey Business magazine. Trump Entertainment Resorts ranked 44th in 2014, when it had 3,766 employees, and dropped to 72nd in 2015 with 2,338 employees, according to the magazines annual surveys.

But that company filed for bankruptcy in 2014, and when it reemerged, it was under the control of billionaire investor Carl Icahn. As of February 26, 2016, Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Icahn Enterprises, L.P., Bloomberg says in its profile of the company.

Full story: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/trumps-employee-exaggeration-in-jersey/


heineken515 - 5/26/2016 at 02:51 PM

Election 2016 Republican Delegate Count - (1,237 Needed to Win)
Trump Cruz Rubio Kasich
1238 559 165 161

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_delegate_ count.html

A hell of a lot of people predicted this would never happen.


gondicar - 5/26/2016 at 03:18 PM

quote:
A hell of a lot of people predicted this would never happen.

True, but most of those predictions are older since it's been pretty obvious for a while now.

Trump as nominee, shame on the GOP. Trump as president, shame on all of us.


bob1954 - 5/26/2016 at 04:58 PM

quote:
Trump as nominee, shame on the GOP. Trump as president, shame on all of us.

It really doesn't matter.

Other than appointing SCOTUS justices the President's influence over the direction of our country is very limited. And no one knows how a Clinton appointee may differ from a Trump appointee, if at all. Our ship is on a certain course and the President may be the captain of the ship but our system of checks and balances prevents him from changing the course by more than a degree or two. Much more power lies with the legislative and judicial branches and I am more interested in seeing how the makeup of congress changes one way or the other. But regardless of who wins the Presidential race most of our lives won't change. Health care will still be expensive, too many lives will be lost in foreign wars, we'll still need to go to work every day, cut the grass every week, and we won't ever know what we did to piss off our wives and girlfriends. Life will go on pretty much unchanged as it has after every other Presidential election. I suppose Trump may embarrass us more on the international stage but on the plus side he'd probably make for some good late night TV comedy.


heineken515 - 5/26/2016 at 05:32 PM

For the most part I agree with you there Bob.

I always recall this thing I saw on the news one election year, many, many years ago.

Peter Jennings or someone like that was out amongst the people and asked this one guy if he was any better off today than he was four years ago, the guys reply was priceless:

"Well of course I am, but I certainly do not attribute that to any politician."


bob1954 - 5/26/2016 at 06:04 PM

I heard a guy on the radio last week who also didn't think it made much difference who wins, but his reasoning was very much different than mine. Basically he said that a Trump victory may bring about an apocalyptic end of the world, but a Trump loss would give us Hillary every time we turn on the TV for the next four years leaving us wishing for the end of the world. So no matter how you look at it it just doesn't matter.


Muleman1994 - 5/27/2016 at 01:12 AM

Last June Trump's candidacy was laughed at by "the political class" and liberals.
They said he wouldn't stay in it long and that he was doing this for publicity.

Now Donald Trump has locked up more than the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination on the first ballot.

Donald Trump has also received more primary votes than any other Republican candidate in history and millions of registered Democrat party voters have dumped that failing party.

What happened?
I thought the liberal media was telling people that it was the Republican Party that was coming apart.

Apparently not.

The liberal media was also telling people that the Trump supporters were going to be violent and riot and that the Republican convention would be contested.
In reality the actual violence is being conducted the the left and the democrat party convention will be contested.

What happened?


LeglizHemp - 5/27/2016 at 11:40 PM

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


gondicar - 5/28/2016 at 12:09 AM

quote:
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]


gondicar - 5/28/2016 at 01:30 AM

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-sander s/index.html


BoytonBrother - 5/28/2016 at 01:45 AM

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.


LeglizHemp - 5/28/2016 at 02:26 AM

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


2112 - 5/28/2016 at 02:34 AM

quote:
quote:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/27/news/trump-university/index.htm l

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



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.


Sang - 5/28/2016 at 03:40 AM

They seem to care that Hillary is a liar, but not Donald....... smh.....


gina - 5/28/2016 at 07:09 PM

quote:
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.


gina - 5/28/2016 at 07:26 PM

Of course people will be talking about this. Marco Rubio is going to "help" Trump at the convention.

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/27/it_doesnt_get_much_sadder_than_this_marco_r ubios_pathetic_but_predictable_about_face_on_donald_trump/

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?




bob1954 - 5/28/2016 at 08:27 PM

quote:
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.


MartinD28 - 5/28/2016 at 09:57 PM

quote:
quote:
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?


MartinD28 - 5/28/2016 at 10:01 PM

quote:
Of course people will be talking about this. Marco Rubio is going to "help" Trump at the convention.

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/27/it_doesnt_get_much_sadder_than_this_marco_r ubios_pathetic_but_predictable_about_face_on_donald_trump/

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.


2112 - 5/28/2016 at 10:18 PM

quote:
quote:
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.


bob1954 - 5/28/2016 at 10:37 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
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.


DougMacKenzie - 5/29/2016 at 12:41 PM

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.


dutchoneill - 5/29/2016 at 02:40 PM

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.


BIGV - 5/29/2016 at 05:58 PM

quote:
The harder the established political stricture pushes against Trump and Sanders, the greater their appeal, regardless of their stance on issues.


Boom.


gondicar - 5/31/2016 at 02:47 PM

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/arti cle/2592501


Muleman1994 - 5/31/2016 at 06:20 PM

quote:
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 cant put away a socialist 74 year old curmudgeon.





gondicar - 6/1/2016 at 04:33 AM


LUKE - 6/1/2016 at 09:20 PM

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


bob1954 - 6/1/2016 at 09:26 PM

quote:
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.


gondicar - 6/3/2016 at 12:08 PM

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, Trumps 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.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/stephen-hawking-angers-trump -supporters-with-baffling-array-of-long-words


gondicar - 6/3/2016 at 12:35 PM

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. Hes like someone caught in the first act who lurches into a second acta solid, prepared speech, a subdued interviewthen scrambles back to first-act antics. Its easy to guess hes 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: Hes not sure he can pull off a change of stylehes afraid hell be boring if hes serious, afraid hell bore himself if he knows what hes going to say next. So he continues to rant, not to reassure fence sitters. Hillary Clinton hasnt entered a second act either, but its partly situational: Shes trapped in a primary battle. When it comes to Mr. Trump she tries various attack linesdivisive, dangerous, dangerously incoherentto see what resonates, as they say. She is plodding, unimaginative, stolid. She wishes she had secret sauce.

Closer to home I see movement. Friends whod been for John Kasich or Marco Rubio now sunnily and without a headache declare themselves for Mr. Trump. An intellectual friend, previously disapproving, confided shes for him too. But two friends who had been early, enthusiastic Trump backers now seem to be having doubts: Theyve lost their oomph, talk about him less. Nothings 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. Trumps 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. Trumps coming nomination and claim theyd 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 theyll 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.

Thats witty and trueIve seen itbut 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 Id written that seemed to him insufficiently conservative. I listened, merely blinking with surprise Im 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 Dont Care What Americans Think About Illegal Immigration. Who do those Americans think they arethey 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 Ive 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. Whenand whydid 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 theyve received have thus far significantly exceeded our expectations.

Its encouraging theyre doing what theyre doing, and that there is a market for it.


gina - 6/5/2016 at 05:46 PM

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.


Lissajess - 6/6/2016 at 06:58 AM

Computer problems

[Edited on 6/6/2016 by Lissajess]


Lissajess - 6/6/2016 at 06:59 AM

Computer problems.

[Edited on 6/6/2016 by Lissajess]


Lissajess - 6/6/2016 at 07:09 AM

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


bob1954 - 6/6/2016 at 11:46 AM

quote:
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!


Bhawk - 6/6/2016 at 03:29 PM

quote:
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.


gondicar - 6/6/2016 at 05:23 PM

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 comparing his wife Melania Trump to Ted Cruz's spouse Heidi Cruz.

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."

https://mic.com/articles/145351/the-disturbing-truth-about-this-black-famil y-that-supposedly-supports-donald-trump#.YWpuwI1Yh

[Edited on 6/6/2016 by gondicar]


gondicar - 6/7/2016 at 02:04 PM

It isn't about right and left anymore, it is about right and wrong.

Graham to Trump backers: 'If anybody was looking for an off-ramp, this is probably it'

Washington (CNN) - South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham urged Republicans backing Donald Trump to rescind their endorsements following the presumptive Republican nominee's comments about judges' ethnicity and religion.

"This is the most un-American thing from a politician since Joe McCarthy," Graham told The New York Times regarding Trump's comments.

"If anybody was looking for an off-ramp, this is probably it," he added. "There'll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary" Clinton.

Full story: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/07/politics/lindsey-graham-donald-trump/index.ht ml


bob1954 - 6/7/2016 at 02:32 PM

quote:
It isn't about right and left anymore, it is about right and wrong.

Graham to Trump backers: 'If anybody was looking for an off-ramp, this is probably it'

Washington (CNN) - South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham urged Republicans backing Donald Trump to rescind their endorsements following the presumptive Republican nominee's comments about judges' ethnicity and religion.

"This is the most un-American thing from a politician since Joe McCarthy," Graham told The New York Times regarding Trump's comments.

"If anybody was looking for an off-ramp, this is probably it," he added. "There'll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary" Clinton.

Full story: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/07/politics/lindsey-graham-donald-trump/index.ht ml

I agree with Graham 100% on this. Someday the people who continue to support Trump will look back and realize that they were very wrong.


LeglizHemp - 6/8/2016 at 12:28 AM

Drumfp is using a teleprompter tonight....what a Loser.


OriginalGoober - 6/8/2016 at 12:35 AM

So much manufactured outrage over this. Has Lindsi Graham or Paul Ryan ever expressed any outrage over illegals commiting murder in San Francisco? The only off ramp i am looking for is the PC culture and obamas liberal agenda.


LeglizHemp - 6/8/2016 at 01:09 AM

WOW, who is this guy?


MartinD28 - 6/8/2016 at 01:17 AM

quote:
Drumfp is using a teleprompter tonight....what a Loser.


How many times has Donald criticized HC for using a teleprompter? Yet here he is doing the same - the epitome of hypocrisy. A teleprompter is probably the best thing for him because when he goes off script everyone knows he's going to say something bat $hit crazy. It's really not his fault because he just can't control himself.


OriginalGoober - 6/8/2016 at 01:38 AM

Glad to see he is back on point talking about fixing America. It was a well delivered speech. I liked what i heard.


LeglizHemp - 6/8/2016 at 02:16 AM

quote:
Glad to see he is back on point talking about fixing America. It was a well delivered speech. I liked what i heard.


OG no disrespect intended in this question, but im curious when you thought he went off-point?


OriginalGoober - 6/8/2016 at 02:28 AM

Trump University is a huge distraction from the focus of campaign . Glad he didnt spend time explaining it again.


LeglizHemp - 6/8/2016 at 02:30 AM

quote:
Trump University is a huge distraction from the focus of campaign . Glad he didnt spend time explaining it again.


fair enough.....thanks


OriginalGoober - 6/8/2016 at 02:33 AM

Historic night for women happening..... Just wish it wasnt Hillary


gondicar - 6/8/2016 at 12:04 PM

quote:
Historic night for women happening..... Just wish it wasnt Hillary

And I wish I had a million dollars, but I don't so I guess I just have to deal with it.


gondicar - 6/8/2016 at 12:09 PM

quote:
So much manufactured outrage over this. Has Lindsi Graham or Paul Ryan ever expressed any outrage over illegals commiting murder in San Francisco? The only off ramp i am looking for is the PC culture and obamas liberal agenda.

So you condone Trump's racism. Cool.


alloak41 - 6/8/2016 at 12:32 PM

Pretty obvious that's going to be the strategy used to defeat Trump. He's a racist. Go with that tactic and Hillary will lose. The race card has been so badly overplayed that the word racist doesn't even mean anything anymore. Most people are sick to death of the race card, and the one's that aren't wouldn't vote for a Republican anyway.


gondicar - 6/8/2016 at 01:14 PM

quote:
Pretty obvious that's going to be the strategy used to defeat Trump. He's a racist. Go with that tactic and Hillary will lose. The race card has been so badly overplayed that the word racist doesn't even mean anything anymore. Most people are sick to death of the race card, and the one's that aren't wouldn't vote for a Republican anyway.

Trump is playing the race card, and he owns it and by extension so do his supporters. What you don't seem to like is the reaction to the race card that Trump keeps playing. And the reaction is not just coming from the left, it is also coming from conservative stalwarts within the GOP, some of the very same people who constantly rail against political correctness because they know the difference and that this is not about being PC. And the reactions will keep coming as long as Trump keeps displaying racist behavior. Strategically, Trump will lose because he has no coherent policy positions other than "I'm building a wall and Mexico will pay for it" and even on that one he can't back it up with how that is going to happen, just that it will somehow happen. And you and others are getting sick of the reactions because you'd rather not have to own it yourself for supporting a candidate who keeps playing the race card in the most racist way possible on an almost daily basis.



[Edited on 6/8/2016 by gondicar]


Bhawk - 6/8/2016 at 01:52 PM

quote:
Pretty obvious that's going to be the strategy used to defeat Trump. He's a racist. Go with that tactic and Hillary will lose. The race card has been so badly overplayed that the word racist doesn't even mean anything anymore. Most people are sick to death of the race card, and the one's that aren't wouldn't vote for a Republican anyway.


Should the judge in the Trump University case be recused because of his Hispanic heritage?



bob1954 - 6/8/2016 at 02:27 PM

quote:
quote:
Pretty obvious that's going to be the strategy used to defeat Trump. He's a racist. Go with that tactic and Hillary will lose. The race card has been so badly overplayed that the word racist doesn't even mean anything anymore. Most people are sick to death of the race card, and the one's that aren't wouldn't vote for a Republican anyway.

Should the judge in the Trump University case be recused because of his Hispanic heritage?

The only way to find out would be for Trump's lawyers to file a motion, which of course they won't do because it is such a ridiculous notion.

Hey, I made a rhyme!


alloak41 - 6/8/2016 at 03:13 PM

quote:
quote:
Pretty obvious that's going to be the strategy used to defeat Trump. He's a racist. Go with that tactic and Hillary will lose. The race card has been so badly overplayed that the word racist doesn't even mean anything anymore. Most people are sick to death of the race card, and the one's that aren't wouldn't vote for a Republican anyway.

Trump is playing the race card, and he owns it and by extension so do his supporters. What you don't seem to like is the reaction to the race card that Trump keeps playing. And the reaction is not just coming from the left, it is also coming from conservative stalwarts within the GOP, some of the very same people who constantly rail against political correctness because they know the difference and that this is not about being PC. And the reactions will keep coming as long as Trump keeps displaying racist behavior. Strategically, Trump will lose because he has no coherent policy positions other than "I'm building a wall and Mexico will pay for it" and even on that one he can't back it up with how that is going to happen, just that it will somehow happen. And you and others are getting sick of the reactions because you'd rather not have to own it yourself for supporting a candidate who keeps playing the race card in the most racist way possible on an almost daily basis.



[Edited on 6/8/2016 by gondicar]


You make a lot of assumptions here. What makes you think I'm sick of reactions? I don't even care. It's all just chatter from people I have little or no respect for and doesn't concern me one bit.

Trump is NOT playing the race card. If you disagree, please provide a list of all the people he's accused of being racist.


alloak41 - 6/8/2016 at 03:17 PM

quote:
quote:
Pretty obvious that's going to be the strategy used to defeat Trump. He's a racist. Go with that tactic and Hillary will lose. The race card has been so badly overplayed that the word racist doesn't even mean anything anymore. Most people are sick to death of the race card, and the one's that aren't wouldn't vote for a Republican anyway.


Should the judge in the Trump University case be recused because of his Hispanic heritage?



No opinion. I don't care either way. Nor do I care about the case. Opinions vary all over the map on whether the courses offered were beneficial or not. And ff high pressure selling was a crime we'd need a
lot more prisons.


bob1954 - 6/8/2016 at 03:30 PM

quote:
No opinion. I don't care either way. Nor do I care about the case. Opinions vary all over the map on whether the courses offered were beneficial or not. And ff high pressure selling was a crime we'd need a
lot more prisons.

High pressure selling is not a crime. Fraud is. The verdict isn't in yet on what went on at Trump U. You should care about the case if you want to be an informed voter. If not the facts of the case then at least be interested in the behavior of the would-be-president defendant. His actions when faced with adversity are telling, no?


Bhawk - 6/8/2016 at 03:58 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Pretty obvious that's going to be the strategy used to defeat Trump. He's a racist. Go with that tactic and Hillary will lose. The race card has been so badly overplayed that the word racist doesn't even mean anything anymore. Most people are sick to death of the race card, and the one's that aren't wouldn't vote for a Republican anyway.


Should the judge in the Trump University case be recused because of his Hispanic heritage?



No opinion. I don't care either way. Nor do I care about the case. Opinions vary all over the map on whether the courses offered were beneficial or not. And ff high pressure selling was a crime we'd need a
lot more prisons.


In an interview, the Presidential candidate for your party infers that a judge is making unfair rulings against said candidate because the judge is "Mexican." You have no issue with that?

Or, maybe what it really is that just like George Bush or Sarah Palin, Republicans have absolutely no desire to hold their own candidates responsible for the things that actually come out of their mouths?

The Party of Personal Responsibility - It's Never Our Fault!


Bhawk - 6/8/2016 at 04:01 PM

quote:
Trump is NOT playing the race card. If you disagree, please provide a list of all the people he's accused of being racist.


So then, what card is he playing?


quote:
TAPPER: What does this have to do with his heritage?

TRUMP: I'll tell you what it has to do. I've had ruling after ruling after ruling that's been bad rulings, OK? I've been treated very unfairly. Before him, we had another judge. If that judge was still there, this case would have been over two years ago. Let me just tell you, I've had horrible rulings, I've been treated very unfairly by this judge. Now, this judge is of Mexican heritage. I'm building a wall, OK? I'm building a wall. I am going to do very well with the Hispanics, the Mexicans --

TAPPER: So, no Mexican judge could ever be involved in a case that involves you?

TRUMP: Well, he's a member of a society, where -- you know, very pro- Mexico, and that's fine. It's all fine but --

TAPPER: Except that you're calling into question his heritage.

TRUMP: I think he should recuse himself.


gondicar - 6/8/2016 at 04:36 PM

quote:
You make a lot of assumptions here. What makes you think I'm sick of reactions? I don't even care.

Didn't seem like much of a stretch since your exact words were "Most people are sick to death of the race card, and the one's that aren't wouldn't vote for a Republican anyway" but if you didn't mean to include yourself among "most people" and you are not sick to death of it then fine, I stand corrected.

quote:
Trump is NOT playing the race card. If you disagree, please provide a list of all the people he's accused of being racist.

Just this week there is U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel and everyone in the media and anyone else who is asking questions about what he said about Judge Curiel...this is a direct quote from Trump: "The people asking those questions - they are the racists."

First he says a well-respected judge is a racist who can't do his job because of it, and then he says reporters are racists for doing their jobs and asking him about it. Politics sure is a nutty thing these days.







[Edited on 6/8/2016 by gondicar]


OriginalGoober - 6/8/2016 at 06:09 PM

Who needs to attend a University when one can just donate to the global Clinton initiative, get hooked up with the right contacts, and have Bill and Hillary smooth out any issues? You want to mine uranium and need State Dept. Ok? No problem. Just pay a 500,000 tuition fee. Need to beef up your air defenses? Apply to take our mini course for only 750,000 (showing up is optional). How about some private tutoring? Slots are filling up fast. Gold bullion preferred.


2112 - 6/8/2016 at 06:42 PM

quote:
quote:
No opinion. I don't care either way. Nor do I care about the case. Opinions vary all over the map on whether the courses offered were beneficial or not. And ff high pressure selling was a crime we'd need a
lot more prisons.

High pressure selling is not a crime. Fraud is. The verdict isn't in yet on what went on at Trump U. You should care about the case if you want to be an informed voter. If not the facts of the case then at least be interested in the behavior of the would-be-president defendant. His actions when faced with adversity are telling, no?


Not to mention that Trump is now being investigated under the RICO Act,which could involve a long jail sentence for Trump. But Trump supporters only seem to care about investigations against Hillary. Personally, I think neither Hillary or Donald will be convinced of anything, because rich people with good lawyers almost never go to jail, but I think Trump will be writing out a bunch of large checks for fraud in the Trump U case.


Bhawk - 6/8/2016 at 06:47 PM

quote:
Who needs to attend a University when one can just donate to the global Clinton initiative, get hooked up with the right contacts, and have Bill and Hillary smooth out any issues? You want to mine uranium and need State Dept. Ok? No problem. Just pay a 500,000 tuition fee. Need to beef up your air defenses? Apply to take our mini course for only 750,000 (showing up is optional). How about some private tutoring? Slots are filling up fast. Gold bullion preferred.


Clever retort. What does any of it have to do with Donald Trump?


LeglizHemp - 6/8/2016 at 08:32 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/08/charles-ko ch-team-donald-trump-campaign-meeting-republican-president/85597102/

Trump's aides reached out to the network a couple weeks ago, said Steve Lombardo, Koch Industries top spokesman. Koch said Mark Holden, Koch Industries general counsel and chairman of the networks umbrella group, Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, would participate in the meeting.

The effort by Trumps camp to court the Koch network represents a sharp reversal for the New York real-estate developer, who touted his ability to fund his own primary campaign and took to Twitter last August to mock five of his Republican rivals who flocked to a California seminar convened by Charles Koch and his brother David Koch.

I wish good luck to all of the Republican candidates that traveled to California to beg for money etc. from the Koch Brothers, Trump tweeted. Puppets?


alloak41 - 6/9/2016 at 02:22 AM

quote:
10 colorful Donald Trump insults from Mitt Romney's speech...


On Trump's business record:

"But you say, 'Wait wait wait,' isn't he a huge business success? Doesn't he know what he's talking about? No he isn't. And know he doesn't. His bankruptcies have crushed small businesses and the men and women who worked for them. He inherited his business, he didn't create it. And what ever happened to Trump Airlines? How about Trump University? And then there's Trump Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks and Trump Mortgage. A business genius he is not."


On Trump's foreign policy credentials:

"Donald Trump tells us that he is very, very smart. I'm afraid that when it comes to foreign policy he is very, very not smart."


On whether Trump has the temperament of a president:

"This is an individual who mocked a disabled reporter, who attributed a reporter's questions to her menstrual cycle, who mocked a brilliant rival who happened to be a woman due to her appearance, who bragged about his marital affairs, and who laces his public speeches with vulgarity."


On how Trump recalls spending the Vietnam War years:

"There is dark irony in his boasts of his sexual exploits during the Vietnam War while at the same time John McCain, whom he has mocked, was imprisoned and tortured."


On Trump's "hallmark" quality:

"Dishonesty is Trump's hallmark: He claimed that he had spoken clearly and boldly against going into Iraq. Wrong. He spoke in favor of invading Iraq. He said he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating 9/11. Wrong. He saw no such thing. He imagined it. He's not of the temperament of the kind of stable, thoughtful person we need as leader. His imagination must not be married to real power."


On his very specific plan to defeat Trump in the primary:

"Given the current delegate selection process, that means that I'd vote for Marco Rubio in Florida, for John Kasich in Ohio, and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state."


On Trump's less appealing "personal qualities":

"Think of Donald Trump's personal qualities, the bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third grade theatrics. We have long referred to him as 'The Donald.' He is the only person in the entire country to whom we have added an article before his name. And it wasn't because he had attributes we admired."


On what Romney thinks is the most ridiculous idea of the campaign season so far:

"What he said on '60 Minutes' about Syria and ISIS has to go down as the most ridiculous and dangerous idea of the campaign season: Let ISIS take out Assad, he said, and then we can pick up the remnants. Think about that: Let the most dangerous terror organization the world has ever known take over a country? This is recklessness in the extreme."


On what would happen if Trump released his tax returns and a tape of his off-the-record conversation with The New York Times:

"I predict that there are more bombshells in his tax returns. I predict that he doesn't give much if anything to the disabled and to our veterans. I predict that he told The New York Times that his immigration talk is just that: talk. ... If I'm right (that he won't release either), you will have all the proof you need to know that Donald Trump is, indeed, a phony."


On the value of a diploma from Trump University:

"Here's what I know. Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He's playing the members of the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat."


http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/mitt-romney-donald-trump-harsh-quote s

[Edited on 3/3/2016 by gondicar]


Had he tried this hard to defeat Obama he might be running for re-election now. What a loser.


alloak41 - 6/9/2016 at 02:27 AM

quote:
quote:
Trump is NOT playing the race card. If you disagree, please provide a list of all the people he's accused of being racist.


So then, what card is he playing?




Beats the hell out of me. Ask gondicar.


alloak41 - 6/9/2016 at 02:35 AM

quote:
quote:
You make a lot of assumptions here. What makes you think I'm sick of reactions? I don't even care.

Didn't seem like much of a stretch since your exact words were "Most people are sick to death of the race card, and the one's that aren't wouldn't vote for a Republican anyway" but if you didn't mean to include yourself among "most people" and you are not sick to death of it then fine, I stand corrected.
quote:


I gladly stand by my statement. I'd venture to say that most people are sick of the race card, grossly overplayed to the point where is means next to nothing at this point.








[Edited on 6/9/2016 by alloak41]


Bhawk - 6/9/2016 at 03:15 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Trump is NOT playing the race card. If you disagree, please provide a list of all the people he's accused of being racist.


So then, what card is he playing?




Beats the hell out of me. Ask gondicar.


Why would I ask gondicar about something you posted?



[Edited on 6/9/2016 by Bhawk]


gondicar - 6/9/2016 at 03:11 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
You make a lot of assumptions here. What makes you think I'm sick of reactions? I don't even care.

Didn't seem like much of a stretch since your exact words were "Most people are sick to death of the race card, and the one's that aren't wouldn't vote for a Republican anyway" but if you didn't mean to include yourself among "most people" and you are not sick to death of it then fine, I stand corrected.
quote:


I gladly stand by my statement. I'd venture to say that most people are sick of the race card, grossly overplayed to the point where is means next to nothing at this point.

Ok, but then you shouldn't have acted so surprised when I "assumed" that you were sick of it when you are the one who is here complaining about it, saying "most people" are sick of it and that the only people who aren't won't ever vote republican anyway. Still seems pretty obvious to me that you are one of the people who think the "race card" has been overplayed and are sick of it, but you say you're not so whatever.


gondicar - 6/9/2016 at 03:13 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Trump is NOT playing the race card. If you disagree, please provide a list of all the people he's accused of being racist.


So then, what card is he playing?




Beats the hell out of me. Ask gondicar.


From previous post (which I know alloak saw because he quoted the post in one of his replies but removed this part)...

quote:
quote:
Trump is NOT playing the race card. If you disagree, please provide a list of all the people he's accused of being racist.

Just this week there is U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel and everyone in the media and anyone else who is asking questions about what he said about Judge Curiel...this is a direct quote from Trump: "The people asking those questions - they are the racists."






[Edited on 6/9/2016 by gondicar]


gondicar - 6/9/2016 at 05:33 PM

Trump's Dubious Drought Claims
The candidate said California has no drought and that water farmers need is being used to protect a three-inch fish

During a campaign rally in Fresno, Donald Trump made two misleading claims about Californias drought and water issues:

- Trump suggested there is no drought in California because the state has plenty of water. But California is in its fifth year of a severe hot drought, the kind thats expected to become more frequent with global warming.

- He also said water is being shoved out to sea to protect a three-inch fish at the expense of farmers. But officials release fresh water from reservoirs primarily to prevent salt water from contaminating agricultural and urban water supplies.

On May 27, Trump met with farmers for a private half-hour meeting before his rally in Fresno, as reported by the Los Angeles Times. During his speech, Trump references this meeting, stating, I just left 50 or 60 farmers in the back and they cant get water. And I say, How tough is it? How bad is the drought? There is no drought. They turn the water out into the ocean. Earlier in this speech, he made similar claims:

Trump, May 27: You have a water problem that is so insane. It is so ridiculous, where theyre taking the water and shoving it out to sea. And I just met with a lot of the farmers, who are great people, and theyre saying, We dont even understand it Ive heard it from other friends of mine in California, where they have farms up here and they dont get water. And I said, Oh thats too bad. Is there a drought? No, we have plenty of water. I said, Whats wrong? Well, we shove it out to sea. And I said, Why? And nobody even knows why. And the environmentalists dont know why. Now, theyre trying to protect a certain kind of three-inch fish.

Trump also told his audience in Fresno that if he wins the election, Believe me, were going to start opening up the water, so that you can have your farmers survive. He added, Were going to get it done quick. Dont even think about it. Thats an easy one.

According to the New York Times, Trump is right that some farmers believe the preservation of fish species has caused the states water issues. In June 2015, the newspaper reported that, Farmers in the Central Valley call it a man-made drought, complaining that water needed for crops is going to fish instead. Carly Fiorina, previously Hewlett-Packards CEO and a GOP candidate, also made similar claims when she was considering running for president last year.

But Californias water issues cant be reduced to the preservation of a threatened fish species. Experts told us water management practices, the states natural climate and global warming have all contributed to the states current drought and water issues.

Full article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-s-dubious-drought-claims/


gondicar - 6/9/2016 at 05:42 PM

Poll shows Pennsylvanians find Phillie Phanatic more qualified to be President than Donald Trump
By Enrico Campitelli June 08, 2016 3:00 PM

A recent poll released by Public Policy Polling shows that 46% of Pennsylvanians polled believe the Phillie Phanatic is more qualified to be President of the United States than Donald Trump.

Trump received 40% of the vote while 14% of the people surveyed were "not sure."

In case you were unfamiliar, the Phillie Phanatic is the fluffy green mascot of the Philadelphia Phillies who, if you want to get specific about it, was born in the Galapagos Islands and therefore isn't even eligible to be President of the United States. Sad!

He also doesn't speak, which if we're being honest, could be a tactic Trump could benefit from employing.



As for the specifics of the survey, you can check those out here: "Public Policy Polling surveyed 1,106 registered voters from June 3rd to 5th. The margin of error is +/- 3.0%. 80% of participants, selected through a list based sample, responded via the phone, while 20% of respondents who did not have landlines conducted the survey over the internet through an opt-in internet panel."

http://www.csnphilly.com/the700level/poll-shows-pennsylvanians-find-phillie -phanatic-more-qualified-be-president-donald-trump


LeglizHemp - 6/9/2016 at 08:02 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-tru mp-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/

USA TODAY exclusive: Hundreds allege Donald Trump doesnt pay his bills

Steve Reilly, USA TODAY 3:47 p.m. EDT June 9, 2016
.
Donald Trump casts himself as a protector of workers and jobs, but a USA TODAY NETWORK investigation found hundreds of people carpenters, dishwashers, painters, even his own lawyers who say he didnt pay them for their work.

During the Atlantic City casino boom in the 1980s, Philadelphia cabinet-builder Edward Friel Jr. landed a $400,000 contract to build the bases for slot machines, registration desks, bars and other cabinets at Harrah's at Trump Plaza.

The family cabinetry business, founded in the 1940s by Edwards father, finished its work in 1984 and submitted its final bill to the general contractor for the Trump Organization, the resorts builder.

Edwards son, Paul, who was the firms accountant, still remembers the amount of that bill more than 30 years later: $83,600. The reason: the money never came. That began the demise of the Edward J. Friel Company which has been around since my grandfather, he said.

Donald Trump often portrays himself as a savior of the working class who will "protect your job." But a USA TODAY NETWORK analysis found he has been involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits over the past three decades and a large number of those involve ordinary Americans, like the Friels, who say Trump or his companies have refused to pay them.

At least 60 lawsuits, along with hundreds of liens, judgments, and other government filings reviewed by the USA TODAY NETWORK, document people who have accused Trump and his businesses of failing to pay them for their work. Among them: a dishwasher in Florida. A glass company in New Jersey. A carpet company. A plumber. Painters. Forty-eight waiters. Dozens of bartenders and other hourly workers at his resorts and clubs, coast to coast. Real estate brokers who sold his properties. And, ironically, several law firms that once represented him in these suits and others.

Trumps companies have also been cited for 24 violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act since 2005 for failing to pay overtime or minimum wage, according to U.S. Department of Labor data. That includes 21 citations against the defunct Trump Plaza in Atlantic City and three against the also out-of-business Trump Mortgage LLC in New York. Both cases were resolved by the companies agreeing to pay back wages.

In addition to the lawsuits, the review found more than 200 mechanics liens filed by contractors and employees against Trump, his companies or his properties claiming they were owed money for their work since the 1980s. The liens range from a $75,000 claim by a Plainview, N.Y., air conditioning and heating company to a $1 million claim from the president of a New York City real estate banking firm. On just one project, Trumps Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, records released by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission in 1990 show that at least 253 subcontractors werent paid in full or on time, including workers who installed walls, chandeliers and plumbing.

The actions in total paint a portrait of Trumps sprawling organization frequently failing to pay small businesses and individuals, then sometimes tying them up in court and other negotiations for years. In some cases, the Trump teams financially overpower and outlast much smaller opponents, draining their resources. Some just give up the fight, or settle for less; some have ended up in bankruptcy or out of business altogether.

Trump and his daughter Ivanka, in an interview with USA TODAY, shrugged off the lawsuits and other claims of non-payment. If a company or worker he hires isnt paid fully, the Trumps said, its because The Trump Organization was unhappy with the work.

Lets say that they do a job thats not good, or a job that they didnt finish, or a job that was way late. Ill deduct from their contract, absolutely, Trump said. Thats what the country should be doing.

'Visibly winced'

To be sure, Trump and his companies have prevailed in many legal disputes over missing payments, or reached settlements that cloud the terms reached by the parties.

However, the consistent circumstances laid out in those lawsuits and other non-payment claims raise questions about Trumps judgment as a businessman, and as a potential commander in chief. The number of companies and others alleging he hasnt paid suggests that either his companies have a poor track record hiring workers and assessing contractors, or that Trump businesses renege on contracts, refuse to pay, or consistently attempt to change payment terms after work is complete as is alleged in dozens of court cases.

In the interview, Trump repeatedly said the cases were a long time ago. However, even as he campaigns for the presidency, new cases are continuing. Just last month, Trump Miami Resort Management LLC settled with 48 servers at his Miami golf resort over failing to pay overtime for a special event. The settlements averaged about $800 for each worker and as high as $3,000 for one, according to court records. Some workers put in 20-hour days over the 10-day Passover event at Trump National Doral Miami, the lawsuit contends. Trumps team initially argued a contractor hired the workers, and he wasnt responsible, and counter-sued the contractor demanding payment.

Trump could have settled it right off the bat, but they wanted to fight it out, thats their M.O. said Rod Hannah, of Plantation, Fla., the lawyer who represented the workers, who he said are forbidden from talking about the case in public. Theyre known for their aggressiveness, and if you have the money, why not?

Similar cases have cropped up with Trumps facilities in California and New York, where hourly workers, bartenders and wait staff have sued with a range of allegations from not letting workers take breaks to not passing along tips to servers. Trump's company settled the California case, and the New York case is pending.

Trump's Doral golf resort also has been embroiled in recent non-payment claims by two different paint firms, with one case settled and the other pending. Last month, his companys refusal to pay one Florida painter more than $30,000 for work at Doral led the judge in the case to order foreclosure of the resort if the contractor isnt paid.

Juan Carlos Enriquez, owner of The Paint Spot, in South Florida, has been waiting more than two years to get paid for his work at the Doral. The Paint Spot first filed a lien against Trumps course, then filed a lawsuit asking a Florida judge to intervene.

In courtroom testimony, the manager of the general contractor for the Doral renovation admitted that a decision was made not to pay The Paint Spot because Trump already paid enough. As the construction manager spoke, Trumps trial attorneys visibly winced, began breathing heavily, and attempted to make eye contact with the witness, the judge noted in his ruling.

That, and other evidence, convinced the judge The Paint Spots claim was credible. He ordered last month that the Doral resort be foreclosed on, sold, and the proceeds used to pay Enriquez the money he was owed. Trumps attorneys have since filed a motion to delay the sale, and the contest continues.

Enriquez still hasnt been paid.

Unpaid hourly workers

Trump frequently boasts that he will bring jobs back to America, including Tuesday in a primary-election night victory speech at his golf club in suburban New York City. No matter who you are, we're going to protect your job, Trump said Tuesday. Because let me tell you, our jobs are being stripped from our country like we're babies.

But the lawsuits show Trumps organization wages Goliath vs David legal battles over small amounts of money that are negligible to the billionaire and his executives but devastating to his much-smaller foes.

In 2007, for instance, dishwasher Guy Dorcinvil filed a federal lawsuit against Trumps Mar-A-Lago Club resort in Palm Beach, Fla., alleging the club failed to pay time-and-a-half for overtime he worked over three years and the company failed to keep proper time records for employees.

Mar-A-Lago LLC agreed to pay Dorcinvil $7,500 to settle the case in 2008. The terms of the settlement agreement includes a standard statement that Mar-A-Lago does not admit fault and forbids Dorcinvil or his lawyers from talking about the case, according to court records.

Developers with histories of not paying contractors are a very small minority of the industry, said Colette Nelson, chief advocacy officer of the American Subcontractors Association. But late or missing payments can be devastating for small businesses and their employees.

Real estate is a tough and aggressive business, but most business people dont set out to make their money by breaking the companies that they do business with, she said, stressing she couldnt speak directly to the specifics of cases in Trumps record. But there are a few.

In the interview, Trump said that complaints represent a tiny fraction of his business empire and dealings with contractors and employees, insisting all are paid fairly. We pay everybody what theyre supposed to be paid, and we pay everybody on time, he said. And we employ thousands and thousands of people. OK?

The slot-machine cabinets

Despite the Trumps assertion that their companies' only refuse payment to contractors when somebody does a bad job, he has sometimes offered to hire those same contractors again. Its a puzzling turn of events, since most people who have a poor experience with a contractor, and who refuse to pay and even fight the contractor in court, arent likely to offer to rehire them.

Nevertheless, such was the case for the Friels. After submitting the final bill for the Plaza casino cabinet-building in 1984, Paul Friel said he got a call asking that his father, Edward, come to the Trump familys offices at the casino for a meeting. There Edward, and some other contractors, were called in one by one to meet with Donald Trump and his brother, Robert Trump.

He sat in a room with nine guys, Paul Friel said. We found out some of them were carpet guys. Some of them were glass guys. Plumbers. You name it.

In the meeting, Donald Trump told his father that the companys work was inferior, Friel said, even though the general contractor on the casino had approved it. The bottom line, Trump told Edward Friel, was the company wouldn't get the final payment. Then, Friel said Trump added something that struck the family as bizarre. Trump told his dad that he could work on other Trump projects in the future.

Wait a minute, Paul Friel said, recalling his family's reaction to his dads account of the meeting. Why would the Trump family want a company who they say their work is inferior to work for them in the future?

Asked about the meeting this week, Trump said, Was the work bad? Was it bad work? And, then, after being told that the general contractor had approved it, Trump added, Well, see heres the thing. Youre talking about, what, 30 years ago?

Ivanka Trump added that any number of disputes over late or deficient payments that were found over the past few decades pale in comparison to the thousands of checks Trump companies cut each month.

We have hundreds of millions of dollars of construction projects underway. And we have, for the most part, exceptional contractors on them who get paid, and get paid quickly, she said, adding that she doubted any contractor complaining in court or in the press would admit they delivered substandard work. But it would be irresponsible if my father paid contractors who did lousy work. And he doesnt do that.

But, the Friels story is similar to experiences of hundreds of other contractors over the casino-boom decade in Atlantic City. Legal records, New Jersey Casino Control Commission records and contemporaneous local newspaper stories recounted time and again tales about the Trumps paying late or renegotiating deals for dimes on the dollar.

A half-decade after the Friels encounter, in 1990, as Trump neared the opening of his third Atlantic City casino, he was once again attempting to pay contractors less than he owed. In casino commission records of an audit, it was revealed that Trumps companies owed a total of $69.5 million to 253 subcontractors on the Taj Mahal project. Some already had sued Trump, the state audit said; others were negotiating with Trump to try to recover what they could. The companies and their hundreds of workers had installed walls, chandeliers, plumbing, lighting and even the casinos trademark minarets.

One of the builders was Marty Rosenberg, vice president of Atlantic Plate Glass Co., who said he was owed about $1.5 million for work at the Taj Mahal. When it became clear Trump was not going to pay in full, Rosenberg took on an informal leadership role, representing about 100 to 150 contractors in negotiations with Trump.

Rosenbergs mission: with Trump offering as little as 30 cents on the dollar to some of the contractors, Rosenberg wanted to get as much as he could for the small businesses, most staffed by younger tradesmen with modest incomes and often families to support.

Yes, there were a lot of other companies," he said of those Trump left waiting to get paid. "Yes, some did not survive."

Rosenberg said his company was among the lucky ones. He had to delay paying his own suppliers to the project. The negotiations led to him eventually getting about 70 cents on the dollar for his work, and he was able to pay all of his suppliers in full.

Unpaid based on 'whimsy'

The analysis of Trump lawsuits also found that professionals, such as real estate agents and lawyers, say he's refused to pay them sizable sums of money. Those cases show that even some loyal employees, those selling his properties and fighting for him in court, are only with him until theyre not.

Real estate broker Rana Williams, who said she had sold hundreds of millions of dollars in Manhattan property for Trump International Realty over more than two decades with the company, sued in 2013 alleging Trump shorted her $735,212 in commissions on deals she brokered from 2009 to 2012. Williams, who managed as many as 16 other sales agents for Trump, said the tycoon and his senior deputies decided to pay her less than her contracted commission rate based on nothing more than whimsy.

Trump and Williams settled their case in 2015, and the terms of the deal are confidential, as is the case in dozens of other settlements between plaintiffs and Trump companies.

However, Williams' 2014 deposition in the case is not sealed. In her sworn testimony, Williams said the 2013 commission shortage wasn't the only one, and neither was she the only person who didn't get fully paid. There were instances where a sizable commission would come in and we would be waiting for payment and it wouldnt come, she testified. That was both for myself and for some of the agents.

Another broker, Jennifer McGovern, filed a similar lawsuit against the now-defunct Trump Mortgage LLC in 2007, citing a six-figure commission on real-estate sales that she said went unpaid. A judge issued a judgment ordering Trump Mortgage to pay McGovern $298,274.

Turning the tables on lawyers

Even Trumps own attorneys, on several occasions, sued him over claims of unpaid bills.

One law firm that fought contractors over payments and other issues for Trump New York Citys Morrison Cohen LLP ended up on the other side of a similar battle with the mogul in 2008. Trump didnt like that its lawyers were using his name in press releases touting its representation of Trump in a lawsuit against a construction contractor that Trump claimed overcharged him for work on a luxury golf club.

As Trump now turned his ire on his former lawyers, however, Morrison Cohen counter-sued. In court records, the law firm alleged Trump didnt pay nearly a half million dollars in legal fees. Trump and his ex-lawyers settled their disputes out of court, confidentially, in 2009.

In 2012, Virginia-based law firm Cook, Heyward, Lee, Hopper & Feehan filed a lawsuit against the Trump Organization for $94,511 for legal fees and costs. The case was eventually settled out of court. But as the case unfolded, court records detail how Trump's senior deputies attacked the attorneys' quality of work in the local and trade press, leading the firm to make claims of defamation that a judge ultimately rejected on free speech grounds.

'Tons of these stories out there'

Trump claims in his presidential personal financial disclosure to be worth $10 billion as a result of his business acumen. Many of the small contractors and individuals who werent paid by him havent been as fortunate.

Edward Friel, of the Philadelphia cabinetry company allegedly shortchanged for the casino work, hired a lawyer to sue for the money, said his son, Paul Friel. But the attorney advised him that the Trumps would drag the case out in court and legal fees would exceed what theyd recover.

The unpaid bill took a huge chunk out of the bottom line of the company that Edward ran to take care of his wife and five kids. The worst part wasnt dealing with the Trumps, Paul Friel said. After standing up to Trump, Friel said the family struggled to get other casino work in Atlantic City. Theres tons of these stories out there, he said.

The Edward J. Friel Co. filed for bankruptcy on Oct. 5, 1989.

Says the founder's grandson: Trump hits everybody.

Contributing: John Kelly, Nick Penzenstadler, Karen Yi, David McKay Wilson


alloak41 - 6/10/2016 at 03:19 PM

No excuse. If this the above is true, Trump should square any past due accounts in which he owes money and do so immediately.


gondicar - 6/10/2016 at 03:30 PM

quote:
No excuse. If this the above is true, Trump should square any past due accounts in which he owes money and do so immediately.

What if he doesn't?


pops42 - 6/10/2016 at 06:18 PM

A good man honors his debts. trump is NOT a "good man".


LeglizHemp - 6/10/2016 at 06:27 PM

this was my favorite part......

However, the consistent circumstances laid out in those lawsuits and other non-payment claims raise questions about Trumps judgment as a businessman, and as a potential commander in chief. The number of companies and others alleging he hasnt paid suggests that either his companies have a poor track record hiring workers and assessing contractors, or that Trump businesses renege on contracts, refuse to pay, or consistently attempt to change payment terms after work is complete as is alleged in dozens of court cases.


LeglizHemp - 6/11/2016 at 03:44 PM

new Trump story

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.html? _r=0

How Donald Trump Bankrupted His Atlantic City Casinos, but Still Earned Millions


Stephen - 6/11/2016 at 03:52 PM

quote:
A good man honors his debts. trump is NOT a "good man".


All due respect pops42 but again -- if he was all-the louse/racist/anti-woman candidate that people have tried to slag him with, personally I don't see how he could've gained the nomination

I don't know politics & have no horse in the race -- people do tend to side w/the underdog tho -- that aspect of things IMO is helping his campaign


Swifty - 6/11/2016 at 04:00 PM

quote:
new Trump story

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.html? _r=0

How Donald Trump Bankrupted His Atlantic City Casinos, but Still Earned Millions


All of these stories in their totality point out that Trump is a specialist at gaming the system. I mean what kind of a billionaire stiffs the dishwasher? Can this type of specialty--and this appears all Trump is capable of doing--be useful to the presidency where the role is to serve the people and not game them?


pops42 - 6/11/2016 at 09:15 PM

quote:
quote:
A good man honors his debts. trump is NOT a "good man".


All due respect pops42 but again -- if he was all-the louse/racist/anti-woman candidate that people have tried to slag him with, personally I don't see how he could've gained the nomination

I don't know politics & have no horse in the race -- people do tend to side w/the underdog tho -- that aspect of things IMO is helping his campaign
He gained the nomination by appealing to the WORST of human traits [lowest common denominator] appealing to the ignorant, the same fools who fell for [trump university] "he's gonna make me wealthy just like him!, because he LOVES the under-educated!" these rubes believe trump's lies about "building a wall that mexico will pay for" "bringing back all the jobs that went overseas" and doing away with "nafta" "cafta" and "TPP".
The guy is a turd, who thinks its his birthright to burn hardworking people out of their rightfully earned money, because, thats how he was raised. A story I have told before: a good friend of mine named Rick Ballard, went to choate in wallingford ct. with a teen aged trump, who was such an a$$hole and hated by all, that somebody winged him in the forehead with a compass [the kind that is metallic point on one side, pencil on the other] stuck right in his forehead, and nobody would rat on the student who did it.


MartinD28 - 6/11/2016 at 11:11 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
A good man honors his debts. trump is NOT a "good man".


All due respect pops42 but again -- if he was all-the louse/racist/anti-woman candidate that people have tried to slag him with, personally I don't see how he could've gained the nomination

I don't know politics & have no horse in the race -- people do tend to side w/the underdog tho -- that aspect of things IMO is helping his campaign
He gained the nomination by appealing to the WORST of human traits [lowest common denominator] appealing to the ignorant, the same fools who fell for [trump university] "he's gonna make me wealthy just like him!, because he LOVES the under-educated!" these rubes believe trump's lies about "building a wall that mexico will pay for" "bringing back all the jobs that went overseas" and doing away with "nafta" "cafta" and "TPP".
The guy is a turd, who thinks its his birthright to burn hardworking people out of their rightfully earned money, because, thats how he was raised. A story I have told before: a good friend of mine named Rick Ballard, went to choate in wallingford ct. with a teen aged trump, who was such an a$$hole and hated by all, that somebody winged him in the forehead with a compass [the kind that is metallic point on one side, pencil on the other] stuck right in his forehead, and nobody would rat on the student who did it.


Let me add to what pops said - specifically to the following questions raised:

"All due respect pops42 but again -- if he was all-the louse/racist/anti-woman candidate that people have tried to slag him with, personally I don't see how he could've gained the nomination."

Response - Trump appeals to a certain percentage of the primary GOP electorate. Mathematically this is a percentage of a percentage. It was not so difficult to trash talk and insult his way into the victory of the percentage game of the GOP primary. It becomes a totally different game when he now must compete with the percentages of the electorate that don't swallow his mantra (the aforementioned all-the louse/racist/anti-woman candidate). What % of the non GOP electorate do you think Trump can expect to jump ship to ride in his boat? As time moves towards November, it will probably play out that the means he used to secure the GOP nomination probably won't translate to a General Election body of voters. The problem is Trump is Trump and can't help himself & in spite of himself. This is who he is, and I'm just guessing that's enough to alienate too many people and with all the degrading, stupid / childish nicknames, and bigoted rhetoric, I doubt he can win enough electoral college votes.


alloak41 - 6/12/2016 at 12:21 AM

quote:
quote:
A good man honors his debts. trump is NOT a "good man".


All due respect pops42 but again -- if he was all-the louse/racist/anti-woman candidate that people have tried to slag him with, personally I don't see how he could've gained the nomination



Easy. It's based on their feelings of moral superiority, while never failing to ignore the shortcomings (moral and otherwise) of their own candidate. That's a given.


BoytonBrother - 6/12/2016 at 01:59 AM

wrong Alloak. The left fully realizes Hillary is dishonest and corrupt on some level, however, how is that different from the majority of all politicians since the country was founded? It's part of politics. We as voters recognize it as B.S., and simply vote for the best candidates. But Trump has invented a whole new game - a game never seen before in American history, so for that reason I don't see how it's logical to put the evils of the 2 candidates on the same level. One is far more dangerous than the other. The left is equally as screwed as the right because I don't know one person on the left who is satisfied with Hillary. But there should be no notion that they are equally as bad, IMO.


alloak41 - 6/12/2016 at 02:11 AM

quote:
wrong Alloak. The left fully realizes Hillary is dishonest and corrupt on some level, however, how is that different from the majority of all politicians since the country was founded? It's part of politics. We as voters recognize it as B.S., and simply vote for the best candidates. But Trump has invented a whole new game - a game never seen before in American history, so for that reason I don't see how it's logical to put the evils of the 2 candidates on the same level. One is far more dangerous than the other. The left is equally as screwed as the right because I don't know one person on the left who is satisfied with Hillary. But there should be no notion that they are equally as bad, IMO.


What "whole new ballgame" has Trump invented and what makes him "far more dangerous" than Hillary Clinton?


alloak41 - 6/12/2016 at 02:19 AM

I'm sticking with my original answer. That's a regular laugh riot,"the left realizes Hillary is dishonest and corrupt on some level."

Wow, they do? Really??

Sorry, but I've seen a few hundred too many, "she hasn't done anything illegal, she hasn't been convicted of anything, everybody does it, it's just a witch hunt, ect, ect, ect, ect." to believe that for one second. Get real!





[Edited on 6/12/2016 by alloak41]


alloak41 - 6/12/2016 at 02:50 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Trump is NOT playing the race card. If you disagree, please provide a list of all the people he's accused of being racist.


So then, what card is he playing?




Beats the hell out of me. Ask gondicar.


Why would I ask gondicar about something you posted?

[Edited on 6/9/2016 by Bhawk]


Because he's the one insisting that Trump is playing a card of some kind. I'm not. Pretty self explanatory.


BoytonBrother - 6/12/2016 at 02:17 PM

quote:
What "whole new ballgame" has Trump invented and what makes him "far more dangerous" than Hillary Clinton?


The ballgame of a presidential candidate openly launching hostile insults towards good people like John McCain, not because he truly feels it, but to appeal to the lowest forms of life in our society. That's one heck of a game to play.

To answer the 2nd part of your question, I'm afraid that the dregs of our society will feel empowered and believe it is ok to go about life insulting Hispanics and Muslims. He's sending messages that it is ok to yell and insult people when you get mad. Those types of people are trash IMO and we should be moving as far away from that culture as humanly possible. I know you probably believe Hillary's actions are a bigger threat to our country, but not me.

quote:
I'm sticking with my original answer. That's a regular laugh riot,"the left realizes Hillary is dishonest and corrupt on some level."

Wow, they do? Really??

Sorry, but I've seen a few hundred too many, "she hasn't done anything illegal, she hasn't been convicted of anything, everybody does it, it's just a witch hunt, ect, ect, ect, ect." to believe that for one second. Get real!


I don't think you should take those reactions so literally. It's pretty clear to me that all the defense of Hillary is more about wondering how she is different than just about all other politicians. I don't know any other politician in my lifetime who has used Trump's tactics. I'm sure there are some small timers who succeeded on a local level, but for someone as famous as Trump for President? C'mon.



[Edited on 6/12/2016 by BoytonBrother]


alloak41 - 6/12/2016 at 02:32 PM

quote:
To answer the 2nd part of your question, I'm afraid that the dregs of our society will feel empowered and believe it is ok to go about life insulting Hispanics and Muslims. He's sending messages that it is ok to yell and insult people when you get mad.
[Edited on 6/12/2016 by BoytonBrother]


Oh, stop. You aren't aware that people have been doing this since before Trump was even born and will still do so 1,000 years after he's gone? You expect us to believe that people have waited for the advent of Trump (to empower them) to act this way?

Sorry, but this gets more ridiculous by the day.


alloak41 - 6/12/2016 at 02:41 PM

To apply your logic, I guess Kennedy empowered people to have multiple adulterous affairs. Nixon empowered people to cover up crimes. Clinton empowered people to conduct their workday like sexual predators and lie in court.

So you must not believe that people know right from wrong on their own, but model their own behavior after a sitting President? Really?


BoytonBrother - 6/12/2016 at 03:12 PM

Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying I guess.


bob1954 - 6/12/2016 at 03:36 PM

quote:
So you must not believe that people know right from wrong on their own, but model their own behavior after a sitting President? Really?

It's a sad testimonial when you have to resort to saying that Trump is acceptable because people know better than to act like him. Whatever happened to leadership?


BrerRabbit - 6/12/2016 at 03:37 PM

I agree. A small example: When Obama allowed himself to be seen smoking cigarettes in public, I was shocked that he would set that role model for young people. It just looked wrong, a president smoking. If he had quit publicly, as a PR move, it would have empowered a lot of people to quit.

Call me a racist, but I think that a black President has sent a strong message to young people of color that race should not be a barrier in education and striving for betterment, and that this country is for everyone.

On that note, a female president will empower young women, with a role model that is woefully late in our history. Republican or Democrat, it almost doesn't matter. Margaret Thatcher was a Tory battle-axe, but she did a great job.

Presidents are for the most part symbols, figureheads of the country. The workings of government will continue pretty much the same, for better or worse.

This thread has shown that all politicos are flawed, so given their similarity on that level:

What face do you want to present to the world as a country? A blustering unstable ignorant demagogue, or an educated, tough, intelligent and civilized woman like Hilary?

If we get one more president who says "nucular" instead of "nuclear", we are indeed doomed.


Bhawk - 6/12/2016 at 03:39 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Trump is NOT playing the race card. If you disagree, please provide a list of all the people he's accused of being racist.


So then, what card is he playing?




Beats the hell out of me. Ask gondicar.


Why would I ask gondicar about something you posted?

[Edited on 6/9/2016 by Bhawk]


Because he's the one insisting that Trump is playing a card of some kind. I'm not. Pretty self explanatory.


Purposefully obtuse to the point of being disingenuous. How shocking.


BoytonBrother - 6/12/2016 at 04:13 PM

quote:
To apply your logic, I guess Kennedy empowered people to have multiple adulterous affairs. Nixon empowered people to cover up crimes. Clinton empowered people to conduct their workday like sexual predators and lie in court.


Your rudeness is a clever way to detract, but I'll stick to the point with this part of your post. You fail to recognize a glaring obvious difference in these examples. Kennedy, Nixon, and Clinton - all examples of "scandal", a negative guilty connotation to it. Where is that association w/ Trump's behavior? It is the opposite - he is being rewarded and worshiped for it by a large portion of our country. Scary. I don't know one person who cheered on Nixon after learning about Watergate. I WISH he was being treated the same as those other 3 you mentioned. So no, it is not my logic at all actually.

[Edited on 6/12/2016 by BoytonBrother]


alloak41 - 6/12/2016 at 04:59 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Trump is NOT playing the race card. If you disagree, please provide a list of all the people he's accused of being racist.


So then, what card is he playing?




Beats the hell out of me. Ask gondicar.


Why would I ask gondicar about something you posted?

[Edited on 6/9/2016 by Bhawk]


Because he's the one insisting that Trump is playing a card of some kind. I'm not. Pretty self explanatory.


Purposefully obtuse to the point of being disingenuous. How shocking.


Shocking but accurate. I answered your question honestly if that's worth anything.


alloak41 - 6/12/2016 at 05:08 PM

quote:
quote:
To apply your logic, I guess Kennedy empowered people to have multiple adulterous affairs. Nixon empowered people to cover up crimes. Clinton empowered people to conduct their workday like sexual predators and lie in court.


Your rudeness is a clever way to detract, but I'll stick to the point with this part of your post. You fail to recognize a glaring obvious difference in these examples. Kennedy, Nixon, and Clinton - all examples of "scandal", a negative guilty connotation to it. Where is that association w/ Trump's behavior? It is the opposite - he is being rewarded and worshiped for it by a large portion of our country. Scary. I don't know one person who cheered on Nixon after learning about Watergate. I WISH he was being treated the same as those other 3 you mentioned. So no, it is not my logic at all actually.

[Edited on 6/12/2016 by BoytonBrother]


Your implication at the start was that people have a tendency to model their behavior around the behavior of a sitting president. That's what scares you so much about Trump, remember?


alloak41 - 6/12/2016 at 05:15 PM

quote:
quote:
So you must not believe that people know right from wrong on their own, but model their own behavior after a sitting President? Really?

It's a sad testimonial when you have to resort to saying that Trump is acceptable because people know better than to act like him.


But i didn't say that. You did.


BrerRabbit - 6/12/2016 at 10:13 PM


London (CNN) As one of the world's most renowned scientists, Stephen Hawking is regularly called on to help explain the universe's more mysterious phenomena.

But asked to account for Donald Trump's political rise Tuesday, the British theoretical physicist was stumped.

"I can't," Hawking told CNN affiliate ITV's "Good Morning Britain" program.

"He is a demagogue, who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator."


jkeller - 6/12/2016 at 10:15 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
So you must not believe that people know right from wrong on their own, but model their own behavior after a sitting President? Really?

It's a sad testimonial when you have to resort to saying that Trump is acceptable because people know better than to act like him.


But i didn't say that. You did.


No, you did. And you know it.


Jerry - 6/13/2016 at 12:14 AM

Quoting BoyntonBrother from 6-11-2016

quote:
wrong Alloak. The left fully realizes Hillary is dishonest and corrupt on some level, however, how is that different from the majority of all politicians since the country was founded? It's part of politics. We as voters recognize it as B.S., and simply vote for the best candidates. But Trump has invented a whole new game - a game never seen before in American history, so for that reason I don't see how it's logical to put the evils of the 2 candidates on the same level. One is far more dangerous than the other. The left is equally as screwed as the right because I don't know one person on the left who is satisfied with Hillary. But there should be no notion that they are equally as bad, IMO.


So you're gonna vote for Trump?


alloak41 - 6/13/2016 at 12:20 AM

quote:
So you must not believe that people know right from wrong on their own, but model their own behavior after a sitting President? Really?

It's a sad testimonial when you have to resort to saying that Trump is acceptable because people know better than to act like him.


But i didn't say that. You did.


No, you did. And you know it.


I did? Where?


alloak41 - 6/13/2016 at 12:25 AM

quote:

London (CNN) As one of the world's most renowned scientists, Stephen Hawking is regularly called on to help explain the universe's more mysterious phenomena.

But asked to account for Donald Trump's political rise Tuesday, the British theoretical physicist was stumped.

"I can't," Hawking told CNN affiliate ITV's "Good Morning Britain" program.

"He is a demagogue, who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator."


Totally useless comment.

Lowest common denominator based on what criteria? Which candidate has appealed to the highest common denominator?


jkeller - 6/13/2016 at 12:27 AM

quote:
quote:
So you must not believe that people know right from wrong on their own, but model their own behavior after a sitting President? Really?

It's a sad testimonial when you have to resort to saying that Trump is acceptable because people know better than to act like him.


But i didn't say that. You did.


No, you did. And you know it.


I did? Where?


Do you read what you post?


Jerry - 6/13/2016 at 12:36 AM

Quoting: Bob1954 On 6-12-2016 @10:36 AM responding to part of Alloak41 post @9:41 that morning.

quote:
quote:
So you must not believe that people know right from wrong on their own, but model their own behavior after a sitting President? Really?

It's a sad testimonial when you have to resort to saying that Trump is acceptable because people know better than to act like him. Whatever happened to leadership?


alloak41 - 6/13/2016 at 02:03 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
So you must not believe that people know right from wrong on their own, but model their own behavior after a sitting President? Really?

It's a sad testimonial when you have to resort to saying that Trump is acceptable because people know better than to act like him.


But i didn't say that. You did.


No, you did. And you know it.


I did? Where?


Do you read what you post?


Of course. Absolutely. For instance, where in my post is the word "acceptable" used?

See what I mean? Some of what Trump has said is not acceptable, I mean I'd never say it. But that's not nearly enough to consider voting for H. Clinton. Not by a LONG shot!





[Edited on 6/13/2016 by alloak41]


gondicar - 6/13/2016 at 03:22 AM


BrerRabbit - 6/13/2016 at 03:32 PM

quote:
Which candidate has appealed to the highest common denominator?


Good question. I wonder if Stephen Hawking would have an answer for that. Probably not.

So, it looks like what we end up with is all politicians are idiots and criminals, so why bother to argue about who is better or more worth voting for? Maybe Trump is simply the most honest one of the lot, for showing everyone what a total *sshole he is and not trying to pretend otherwise.

Like I said before, when he slandered John McCain's Vietnam POW sacrifice, this *ssclown lost me. Why did he have to do that? He is unstable, unpredictable, and dangerous. He's going to do something really bad. And it will be your fault if you elect him.






BoytonBrother - 6/13/2016 at 04:19 PM

Beautifully stated. And the notion that our President, or any leader for that matter, is exempt from demonstrating the highest levels of honor, is foolish. Shame on the leaders who fail at that, and shame on our citizens who accept it from any party.


BoytonBrother - 6/13/2016 at 04:19 PM

Beautifully stated. And the notion that our President, or any leader for that matter, is exempt from demonstrating the highest levels of honor, is foolish. Shame on the leaders who fail at that, and shame on our citizens who accept it from any party.


OriginalGoober - 6/13/2016 at 04:34 PM

quote:
. He's going to do something really bad. And it will be your fault if you elect him.





He might actually make people go out and find a job and work instead of collecting benefits. The horror!!

[Edited on 6/13/2016 by OriginalGoober]


BrerRabbit - 6/13/2016 at 05:00 PM

I was more thinking along the lines of World War Three.


BoytonBrother - 6/13/2016 at 06:48 PM

quote:
He might actually make people go out and find a job and work instead of collecting benefits. The horror!!


Or make us a target. But he's within his right to bash religions and nationalities so therefore he's 100% excused.


alloak41 - 6/14/2016 at 01:21 AM

It won't take long. After 3-4 months with President Trump, people won't be able to control themselves. Everybody will turn into a big meanie, just like him.


BrerRabbit - 6/14/2016 at 01:50 AM

Oh well, c'est la vie, to each his own I guess. I just can't for the life of me fathom why you love Trump so much. If someone that *ssholy were blowing his toxic air at your dinner table you would probably stick a fork in his eye.


Jerry - 6/14/2016 at 02:36 AM

quote:
I was more thinking along the lines of World War Three.


That would put a lot of people back to work.


gondicar - 6/14/2016 at 01:38 PM

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/fact-checking-d onald-trump-s-orlando-response-speech-n591571


alloak41 - 6/14/2016 at 01:55 PM

quote:
Oh well, c'est la vie, to each his own I guess. I just can't for the life of me fathom why you love Trump so much. If someone that *ssholy were blowing his toxic air at your dinner table you would probably stick a fork in his eye.


He's too funny to poke in the eye, though I realize you probably don't think so. Sorry I'm not as offended by Trump as the PC police wants me to be. You're welcome to keep trying. I think it's kinda cute.


BoytonBrother - 6/14/2016 at 02:47 PM

Somehow you have managed to make Muleman the more interesting conservative poster. He had a higher retention rate for sure.


alloak41 - 6/14/2016 at 02:51 PM

quote:
Somehow you have managed to make Muleman the more interesting conservative poster. He had a higher retention rate for sure.


But alas, this thread is not about either Muleman, nor myself.

Personal insults? Your already letting Donald Trump influence your personal behavior. That wasn't supposed to start happening until he got elected.







[Edited on 6/14/2016 by alloak41]


gondicar - 6/14/2016 at 04:07 PM

Trump continues to restrict freedom of the press by revoking the press credentials of newspapers and other media that write what they feel are truthful stories about what hes been up to. I guess he wants to pick and choose which parts of the constitution to follow...

Donald Trump Revokes Washington Posts Press Credentials

By Julian Routh
Jun 13, 2016 6:45 pm ET

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Monday said his campaign is revoking the press credentials of the Washington Post, citing its coverage of the candidates comments on the Orlando shooting.

Based on the incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting of the record setting Trump campaign, we are hereby revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post, Mr. Trump said in a post on Facebook. Press credentials typically give reporters access to campaign events and press conferences.

We no longer feel compelled to work with a publication which has put its need for clicks above journalistic integrity, the campaign said in statement released following the Facebook post. They have no journalistic integrity and write falsely about Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump does not mind a bad story, but it has to be honest.

The Trump campaign pointed to the initial Post headline Donald Trump Suggests President Obama Was Involved With Orlando Shooting as the reason for revoking credentials. The story centered on Mr. Trumps comment on Fox News on Monday morning that President Barack Obama doesnt understand Islamic terrorism, or he gets it better than anybody understands. In his Fox comments, Mr. Trump also said: Look guys, were led by a man that either is not tough, not smart or has something else in mind.

In its statement, the Trump campaign also took a swipe at Post owner Jeff Bezos, the billionaire businessman who founded Amazon.com. The fact is, the Washington Post is being used by the owners of Amazon as their political lobbyist so that they dont have to pay taxes and dont get sued for monopolistic tendencies that have led to the destruction of department stores and the retail industry, the statement said.

In a statement Monday, Washington Post editor Marty Baron said: Donald Trumps decision to revoke the Washington Posts press credentials is nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press. When coverage doesnt correspond to what the candidate wants it to be, then a news organization is banished. He added: The Post will continue to cover Donald Trump as it has all along honorably, honestly, accurately, energetically, and unflinchingly. Were proud of our coverage, and were going to keep at it.

Robert Mahoney, deputy executive director for the Committee to Protect Journalists, urged Mr. Trump to reconsider his decision, saying it provides a ready made excuse for authoritarian leaders to crackdown further on independent journalists.

A candidate for the highest elected office in the land doesnt get to choose what goes in a newspaper, Mr. Mahoney said in a statement.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/06/13/donald-trump-revokes-washington-po st-press-credentials/


MartinD28 - 6/14/2016 at 04:42 PM

quote:
quote:
Oh well, c'est la vie, to each his own I guess. I just can't for the life of me fathom why you love Trump so much. If someone that *ssholy were blowing his toxic air at your dinner table you would probably stick a fork in his eye.


He's too funny to poke in the eye, though I realize you probably don't think so. Sorry I'm not as offended by Trump as the PC police wants me to be. You're welcome to keep trying. I think it's kinda cute.


So alloak, when those of us who are offended by Donald making fun of a disabled reporter, are we being too politically correct? What is your belief when your beloved Donald has crossed the line, or is there even a line which is PC for you?

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/11/26/donald-trump-mocks-reporter-with-di sability-berman-sot-ac.cnn


BrerRabbit - 6/14/2016 at 05:41 PM

I get it, it is some kind of a wagon-circling against the "PC Police". Never did understand that obsession with "PC" when usually it just has to do with common courtesy and basic manners. That is what is driving the Trump thing, then. Everyone watching envying the playground bully and wishing they could get away with it too. The ascendancy of Trump has a lot in common with the rise of Hitler. The arrogance and baiting, starting out verbal, then creating a firestorm of violence in the frustrated masses. This is gonna get real interesting.

Very similar phenomenon to Hitler's Brownshirts:

yeah yeah its wiki, but it isn't anything new:

BROWNSHIRTS: More than a year later, on 3 August 1921, Hitler redefined the group as the "Gymnastic and Sports Division" of the party (Turn- und Sportabteilung), perhaps to avoid trouble with the government. It was by now well recognized as an appropriate, even necessary, function or organ of the party. The future SA developed by organizing and formalizing the groups of ex-soldiers and beer hall brawlers who were to protect gatherings of the Nazi Party from disruptions from Social Democrats (SPD) and Communists (KPD) and to disrupt meetings of the other political parties. By September 1921 the name Sturmabteilung was being used informally for the group. Hitler was the official head of the Nazi Party by this time.


BrerRabbit - 6/14/2016 at 06:24 PM


BoytonBrother - 6/14/2016 at 07:18 PM

quote:
But alas, this thread is not about either Muleman, nor myself.

Personal insults? Your already letting Donald Trump influence your personal behavior. That wasn't supposed to start happening until he got elected.


I didn't insult you. I only said muleman was more interesting. Sensitive much? See how that works? He can't influence me. He can only influence dysfunctional 'merica.


Jerry - 6/14/2016 at 08:49 PM

quote:



What's the context of the photo? When, and where was it taken? Was she waving at someone, trying to get a "high five", or was she going to pat the guy on the head?

That picture doesn't speak a thousand words to me, it just seems to want questions asked about it.


Bhawk - 6/14/2016 at 08:52 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Oh well, c'est la vie, to each his own I guess. I just can't for the life of me fathom why you love Trump so much. If someone that *ssholy were blowing his toxic air at your dinner table you would probably stick a fork in his eye.


He's too funny to poke in the eye, though I realize you probably don't think so. Sorry I'm not as offended by Trump as the PC police wants me to be. You're welcome to keep trying. I think it's kinda cute.


So alloak, when those of us who are offended by Donald making fun of a disabled reporter, are we being too politically correct? What is your belief when your beloved Donald has crossed the line, or is there even a line which is PC for you?

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/11/26/donald-trump-mocks-reporter-with-di sability-berman-sot-ac.cnn


That's the punchline. There's nothing Trump could say or do that alloak would have a problem with.


Bhawk - 6/14/2016 at 08:53 PM

quote:
quote:



What's the context of the photo? When, and where was it taken? Was she waving at someone, trying to get a "high five", or was she going to pat the guy on the head?

That picture doesn't speak a thousand words to me, it just seems to want questions asked about it.


If she was wearing a Bernie shirt, I'll bet you wouldn't say another word about it.


Jerry - 6/14/2016 at 09:52 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:



What's the context of the photo? When, and where was it taken? Was she waving at someone, trying to get a "high five", or was she going to pat the guy on the head?

That picture doesn't speak a thousand words to me, it just seems to want questions asked about it.


If she was wearing a Bernie shirt, I'll bet you wouldn't say another word about it.


Actually, I would, but not what you are probably thinking I would say.


BrerRabbit - 6/14/2016 at 09:57 PM

So what's he probably thinking you'd say?


Jerry - 6/14/2016 at 10:12 PM

quote:
So what's he probably thinking you'd say?


He might be thinking that I'd say: See, Bernies' supporters are Nazis. But, I wouldn't since the Nazis and Socialists are two different mind sets. True socialists are communal, Nazis are totalitarian.

A socialist candidate doesn't bother me. FDR, Wilson, Johnson, and Jefferson could all be considered socialists.


Bhawk - 6/14/2016 at 11:20 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:



What's the context of the photo? When, and where was it taken? Was she waving at someone, trying to get a "high five", or was she going to pat the guy on the head?

That picture doesn't speak a thousand words to me, it just seems to want questions asked about it.


If she was wearing a Bernie shirt, I'll bet you wouldn't say another word about it.


Actually, I would, but not what you are probably thinking I would say.


I don't think you'd say anything since you wouldn't give the same benefit of the doubt. I could be wrong.


gondicar - 6/14/2016 at 11:43 PM


Donald Trump on Orlando Shooting
The GOP candidate distorts the facts on the Orlando and San Bernardino shootings and Syrian refugees

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/donald-trump-on-orlando-shooting/


alloak41 - 6/15/2016 at 05:40 PM

quote:



MoveOn.org is paying her $15 an hour...

If not she's just looking for somebody to hit. Violence and hate are all the Trump supporters care about.


Jerry - 6/16/2016 at 12:23 AM

quote:



Here's the story that BrerRabbit didn't want to share.
From the Chicago Tribune:
(snip)
The woman in the photo taken by a Tribune photographer outside the University of Illinois at Chicago Pavilion on March 11 is shown wearing a Trump shirt and was identified as Birgitt Peterson, 69, of Yorkville, as reported in a Tribune story the next day. Peterson said she emigrated from West Berlin and has been a US citizen since 1982.
(snip)
The woman in the photo and her husband defended her actions, saying the salute happened during an argument with protesters. Peterson, a Trump supporter, said protesters told her she was there to vote for Hitler and started giving her the Nazi gesture.
Peterson asked them if they knew what the salute meant.
Her husband, Donald, told the Tribune, "So Birgitt decided to teach them to do it." He insisted they were not Nazis."

There's more if you want to read it, but you'll have to find it at the Tribune website.


LeglizHemp - 6/16/2016 at 01:20 AM

i tend to think she is proud of herself no matter whether she is really a trump supporter or a bernie fan or a hillary diehard. i think she did it for personal reasons not political. HEY, Look at ME. other than that.....who cares.


OriginalGoober - 6/16/2016 at 01:21 AM

This was so long ago, when the MSM played the old man punching the black man over and over 24 seven. They barely reported the San Jose violence but there is no bias.


LeglizHemp - 6/16/2016 at 01:54 AM

oh i don't know...i think it was well reported


gondicar - 6/16/2016 at 01:14 PM

quote:
oh i don't know...i think it was well reported

Of course it was. No idea what he is talking about.


LUKE - 6/16/2016 at 04:20 PM

By all means,just vote HILLARY.Just like Obama,she loves us one and all.And her only heart felt concern is that all our desires,goals,wants etc are to be met and satisfied.What a wonderful,honest,caring,loving and moral person.GOD bless her.
VOTE HILLARY!
I wish they'd erect a statue of her in every state.What a sweet and wonderful human being.



Stephen - 6/16/2016 at 04:55 PM

I still say Hillary would improve her chances by making Bernie her VP -- combined, they outpolled Donald during the primaries, why shouldn't they during the election

Originally I wanted the GOP to win the election, but that was before Donald became the nominee -- his chances will depend on how the convention goes & who he hires for VP

He's unpolished & talks the plain talk -- people identify with that -- never thought he'd get this far but who knows w/politics



heineken515 - 6/16/2016 at 06:32 PM

quote:
By all means,just vote HILLARY.Just like Obama,she loves us one and all.And her only heart felt concern is that all our desires,goals,wants etc are to be met and satisfied.What a wonderful,honest,caring,loving and moral person.GOD bless her.
VOTE HILLARY!
I wish they'd erect a statue of her in every state.What a sweet and wonderful human being.





Luke, you and Oprah think alike !

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/oprah-endorses-hillary-clinton-presid ent-903508


BoytonBrother - 6/16/2016 at 07:23 PM

Luke, neither Hillary nor Trump are nice, neither care about the people. So what is it really that makes you hate one and not the other?


bob1954 - 6/16/2016 at 08:15 PM

quote:
Luke, neither Hillary nor Trump are nice, neither care about the people. So what is it really that makes you hate one and not the other?

Bingo! We have a winner. This is why non-partisan folks like me have no trouble saying they both suck. The dilemma is that if you are going to vote you need to decide to vote for one of the sucky mainstream candidates, or one of the 3rd party candidates who can not win. No matter how you look at it this election is going to suck. Arguments over which candidate sucks worse should not be taken to mean that the other candidate doesn't suck, even if to a lesser degee than the suckiest candidate. It's like saying that just because brussel sprouts suck worse than broccoli that broccoli is good. No, broccoli sucks, just not as bad as brussel sprouts. Green beans are good, but they are not on the menu.


alloak41 - 6/16/2016 at 08:57 PM

quote:
quote:
Luke, neither Hillary nor Trump are nice, neither care about the people. So what is it really that makes you hate one and not the other?

Bingo! We have a winner. This is why non-partisan folks like me have no trouble saying they both suck. The dilemma is that if you are going to vote you need to decide to vote for one of the sucky mainstream candidates, or one of the 3rd party candidates who can not win. No matter how you look at it this election is going to suck. Arguments over which candidate sucks worse should not be taken to mean that the other candidate doesn't suck, even if to a lesser degee than the suckiest candidate. It's like saying that just because brussel sprouts suck worse than broccoli that broccoli is good. No, broccoli sucks, just not as bad as brussel sprouts. Green beans are good, but they are not on the menu.


Same as pretty much any other election. What's different this cycle is the presence of a true outsider, Mr. Trump. Somebody from the business world should get a chance. Someone who cut his teeth in the private economy.







[Edited on 6/16/2016 by alloak41]


jkeller - 6/16/2016 at 09:14 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Luke, neither Hillary nor Trump are nice, neither care about the people. So what is it really that makes you hate one and not the other?

Bingo! We have a winner. This is why non-partisan folks like me have no trouble saying they both suck. The dilemma is that if you are going to vote you need to decide to vote for one of the sucky mainstream candidates, or one of the 3rd party candidates who can not win. No matter how you look at it this election is going to suck. Arguments over which candidate sucks worse should not be taken to mean that the other candidate doesn't suck, even if to a lesser degee than the suckiest candidate. It's like saying that just because brussel sprouts suck worse than broccoli that broccoli is good. No, broccoli sucks, just not as bad as brussel sprouts. Green beans are good, but they are not on the menu.


Same as pretty much any other election. What's different this cycle is the presence of a true outsider, Mr. Trump. Somebody from the business world should get a chance. Someone who cut his teeth in the private economy.







[Edited on 6/16/2016 by alloak41]


Somebody from the business world? Maybe it might be time for that. But not Trump. He made his fortune by inheriting millions from his father and then proceeded to have several casinos, an airline and a food business go bankrupt. He started a "school" that also went under and is being sued by many individuals. He also has been taken taken to court many times for failing to pay people he contracted to work for him. You think this makes him presidential material?


BoytonBrother - 6/16/2016 at 11:32 PM

I'm ok with an outsider. It just makes the right look kinda foolish when they've been screaming "community organizer" for 8 years. I oppose trump but not because of his political inexperience.


alloak41 - 6/17/2016 at 04:00 AM

quote:
I'm ok with an outsider. It just makes the right look kinda foolish when they've been screaming "community organizer" for 8 years.


Not really. Obama had no executive or administrative experience, no business background,
and little or no experience in the private sector.

It's shown.


jkeller - 6/17/2016 at 04:02 AM

quote:
quote:
I'm ok with an outsider. It just makes the right look kinda foolish when they've been screaming "community organizer" for 8 years.


Not really. Obama had no executive or administrative experience, no business background,
and little or no experience in the private sector.

It's shown.


Yeah, in spite of that he has been a pretty good president.

Trump has run his businesses into the ground. Yeah, let's let him run the entire country.


gondicar - 6/17/2016 at 02:01 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Luke, neither Hillary nor Trump are nice, neither care about the people. So what is it really that makes you hate one and not the other?

Bingo! We have a winner. This is why non-partisan folks like me have no trouble saying they both suck. The dilemma is that if you are going to vote you need to decide to vote for one of the sucky mainstream candidates, or one of the 3rd party candidates who can not win. No matter how you look at it this election is going to suck. Arguments over which candidate sucks worse should not be taken to mean that the other candidate doesn't suck, even if to a lesser degee than the suckiest candidate. It's like saying that just because brussel sprouts suck worse than broccoli that broccoli is good. No, broccoli sucks, just not as bad as brussel sprouts. Green beans are good, but they are not on the menu.


Same as pretty much any other election. What's different this cycle is the presence of a true outsider, Mr. Trump. Somebody from the business world should get a chance. Someone who cut his teeth in the private economy.

Outsider? Bwwaaaaa aaa haahahaha aha ha hhhaaaa!

Cruz: Trump Posing as an Outsider Is Among 'Greatest Frauds' in Modern History
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/30/ted-cruz-hannity-trump-pretending-be- outsider-one-greatest-frauds-modern-electoral

Paul: Trump is an insider pretending to be an outsider
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/250663-paul-trump-is-an-i nsider-pretending-to-be-an-outsider

Political outsider Donald Trump, the most politician-y politician ever
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/political-outsider-donald-trump-the -most-politiciany-politician-ever/2016/05/05/52f113c4-12fd-11e6-8967-7ac733 c56f12_story.html


sixty8 - 6/17/2016 at 06:16 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Luke, neither Hillary nor Trump are nice, neither care about the people. So what is it really that makes you hate one and not the other?

Bingo! We have a winner. This is why non-partisan folks like me have no trouble saying they both suck. The dilemma is that if you are going to vote you need to decide to vote for one of the sucky mainstream candidates, or one of the 3rd party candidates who can not win. No matter how you look at it this election is going to suck. Arguments over which candidate sucks worse should not be taken to mean that the other candidate doesn't suck, even if to a lesser degee than the suckiest candidate. It's like saying that just because brussel sprouts suck worse than broccoli that broccoli is good. No, broccoli sucks, just not as bad as brussel sprouts. Green beans are good, but they are not on the menu.


Same as pretty much any other election. What's different this cycle is the presence of a true outsider, Mr. Trump. Somebody from the business world should get a chance. Someone who cut his teeth in the private economy.







[Edited on 6/16/2016 by alloak41]


Not a shady businessman who is narcissistic, sociopathic, immature, impulsive, nasty, racist, and has zero self control. Both choices suck but there are clear differences and Trump has shown himself to be very dangerous with the incredibly stupid, un Constitutional, and un American things he says on a daily basis. Clinton might not be great but she is a far cry better than that crazy maniac Trump.

I will say it again and have been saying it for years on here. The Republicans just don't get it. They could have won in 2008 had they nominated McCain without forcing him to flip to the extreme right and had they let him campaign as himself which was the McCain who campaigned against W Bush in 2000. They could have won in 2008 had they allowed Romney to campaign as himself instead of making him flip on so many issues that he came off as complete phony. This time they didn't just nominate a flip flopping phony but they doubled down and added in a crazy out of control maniac and this will be a much larger loss than the last two.

This election was there for the taking and there was a single well respected Republican candidate who all polls showed would defeat Clinton but the Trump groupies decided that change for spite's sake was more important than winning back the White House. You Trumpeteers could have had President Kasich and all of those possible SCOTUS appointments. Now you will get at least four and probably eight years of Clinton and you have nobody to blame but yourselves for choosing the maniac Trump over the respected Kasich.

Remember that on November 8 when you are watching endless streams of Hilary giving her victory speech.


Stephen - 6/17/2016 at 06:55 PM

quote:


Remember that on November 8 when you are watching endless streams of Hilary giving her victory speech.




Again, I don't think it's that sure of a thing (didn't read entire post) -- a lot can happen during the course of an election

Hasn't Trump said he'd build a wall around the US to keep out aliens (could be wrong)
if elected, Donald would never be able to keep that campaign promise --
Donald won't win if his 1st or 2nd choices for VP, pass --
Yes it'd appear as tho the election is Hillary's to lose, esp. if she picks Bernie for VP
Again tho, who knows -- people are paying attention to Donald too


OriginalGoober - 6/17/2016 at 07:07 PM

quote:
Luke, neither Hillary nor Trump are nice, neither care about the people. So what is it really that makes you hate one and not the other?




One will take more money out of your pocket than the other. Its better to believe in equal opportunity for all.


bob1954 - 6/17/2016 at 07:43 PM

quote:
I will say it again and have been saying it for years on here. The Republicans just don't get it. They could have won in 2008 had they nominated McCain without forcing him to flip to the extreme right and had they let him campaign as himself which was the McCain who campaigned against W Bush in 2000. They could have won in 2008 had they allowed Romney to campaign as himself instead of making him flip on so many issues that he came off as complete phony. This time they didn't just nominate a flip flopping phony but they doubled down and added in a crazy out of control maniac and this will be a much larger loss than the last two.

This election was there for the taking and there was a single well respected Republican candidate who all polls showed would defeat Clinton but the Trump groupies decided that change for spite's sake was more important than winning back the White House. You Trumpeteers could have had President Kasich and all of those possible SCOTUS appointments. Now you will get at least four and probably eight years of Clinton and you have nobody to blame but yourselves for choosing the maniac Trump over the respected Kasich.

I think there is a lot of truth in this. The Democrats nominated a candidate who is easily defeatable. The Republicans nominated one of the few candidates who is not likely to beat her. It's pretty stupid when you think of it.


OriginalGoober - 6/17/2016 at 07:44 PM

quote:
Luke, neither Hillary nor Trump are nice, neither care about the people. So what is it really that makes you hate one and not the other?




One will take more money out of your pocket than the other. Its better to believe1 in equal opportunity for all than equal results


Bhawk - 6/17/2016 at 08:49 PM

Trump's tax plan is the ultimate gamble in putting more money into the economy by cutting taxes which leads to growth. Pretty much all experts agree that it will add about $10 trillion to the deficit, where they split is on the growth impact of such a move.


alloak41 - 6/18/2016 at 03:13 AM

quote:
quote:
I will say it again and have been saying it for years on here. The Republicans just don't get it. They could have won in 2008 had they nominated McCain without forcing him to flip to the extreme right and had they let him campaign as himself which was the McCain who campaigned against W Bush in 2000. [/quo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------


Absolutely no way ANY Republican wins that election. Not with the unpopularity of Bush, not to mention an economic "collapse" just before the election.






[Edited on 6/18/2016 by alloak41]


2112 - 6/18/2016 at 03:53 AM

quote:
Trump's tax plan is the ultimate gamble in putting more money into the economy by cutting taxes which leads to growth. Pretty much all experts agree that it will add about $10 trillion to the deficit, where they split is on the growth impact of such a move.


It's never worked before, but I'm sure it will this time.


LeglizHemp - 6/18/2016 at 06:25 AM

hillary wins...changing my numbers from 58-42 though

prob be 54-31-14.....hillary....donald....johnson


bob1954 - 6/18/2016 at 01:35 PM

quote:
hillary wins...changing my numbers from 58-42 though

prob be 54-31-14.....hillary....donald....johnson

I think you hit the trifecta correctly but as much as I'd like to see it I don't think Johnson will break 10%. I also don't think Hillary will win by more that a 10-12% margin although it is early and things could change. Both Hillary and Trump have enough baggage with them to put them completely in the ditch depending on what happens.


alloak41 - 6/18/2016 at 02:36 PM

quote:
quote:
Trump's tax plan is the ultimate gamble in putting more money into the economy by cutting taxes which leads to growth. Pretty much all experts agree that it will add about $10 trillion to the deficit, where they split is on the growth impact of such a move.


It's never worked before, but I'm sure it will this time.


Kennedy and Reagan might disagree.

If you feel the government does not collect enough revenue, there's a form to file with your taxes
whereby you can send more than you owe. Don't make your fellow citizens do it for you.





[Edited on 6/18/2016 by alloak41]


LUKE - 6/18/2016 at 04:22 PM

Can't we just keep Obama? I mean he's done a really good job.The economy is great,racial relations are at a all time high on the positive note,theres not much trouble around the world right now,all countries respect and like him as well.I mean i have never seen this country so alive,happy,transparent,and everybody getting along.
OBAMA 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


bob1954 - 6/18/2016 at 04:48 PM

quote:
Can't we just keep Obama? I mean he's done a really good job.The economy is great,racial relations are at a all time high on the positive note,theres not much trouble around the world right now,all countries respect and like him as well.I mean i have never seen this country so alive,happy,transparent,and everybody getting along.
OBAMA 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keeping him is tempting, but I heard we need to remove him in order to avert a sarcasm epidemic.


jkeller - 6/18/2016 at 04:50 PM

quote:
quote:
Can't we just keep Obama? I mean he's done a really good job.The economy is great,racial relations are at a all time high on the positive note,theres not much trouble around the world right now,all countries respect and like him as well.I mean i have never seen this country so alive,happy,transparent,and everybody getting along.
OBAMA 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keeping him is tempting, but I heard we need to remove him in order to avert a sarcasm epidemic.


Too late, Bob. It has been going on since 1/20/09.


gina - 6/18/2016 at 08:35 PM

quote:
Can't we just keep Obama? I mean he's done a really good job.The economy is great,racial relations are at a all time high on the positive note,theres not much trouble around the world right now,all countries respect and like him as well.I mean i have never seen this country so alive,happy,transparent,and everybody getting along.
OBAMA 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




If there is a disaster, national emergency, (ie. a major terrorism attack, the big earthquake that hits California, a major hurricane, the power grid going down something big like those things) then he stays in office and there is no election, and then...the revolution would begin, martial law would be rolled out, and all the practice with those Jade Helm exercises would be put to use rounding up dissident citizens.


bob1954 - 6/18/2016 at 09:22 PM

quote:
quote:
Can't we just keep Obama? I mean he's done a really good job.The economy is great,racial relations are at a all time high on the positive note,theres not much trouble around the world right now,all countries respect and like him as well.I mean i have never seen this country so alive,happy,transparent,and everybody getting along.
OBAMA 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




If there is a disaster, national emergency, (ie. a major terrorism attack, the big earthquake that hits California, a major hurricane, the power grid going down something big like those things) then he stays in office and there is no election, and then...the revolution would begin, martial law would be rolled out, and all the practice with those Jade Helm exercises would be put to use rounding up dissident citizens.



Gina, are you forgetting to take your meds?


Bhawk - 6/18/2016 at 09:44 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Trump's tax plan is the ultimate gamble in putting more money into the economy by cutting taxes which leads to growth. Pretty much all experts agree that it will add about $10 trillion to the deficit, where they split is on the growth impact of such a move.


It's never worked before, but I'm sure it will this time.


Kennedy and Reagan might disagree.

If you feel the government does not collect enough revenue, there's a form to file with your taxes
whereby you can send more than you owe. Don't make your fellow citizens do it for you.




You support a tax plan that creates a $10 trillion deficit? Alrighty then. So noted.


alloak41 - 6/19/2016 at 12:29 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Trump's tax plan is the ultimate gamble in putting more money into the economy by cutting taxes which leads to growth. Pretty much all experts agree that it will add about $10 trillion to the deficit, where they split is on the growth impact of such a move.


It's never worked before, but I'm sure it will this time.


Kennedy and Reagan might disagree.

If you feel the government does not collect enough revenue, there's a form to file with your taxes
whereby you can send more than you owe. Don't make your fellow citizens do it for you.




You support a tax plan that creates a $10 trillion deficit? Alrighty then. So noted.


A $10 Trillion dollar deficit? I seriously doubt Trump will propose a $14 Trillion FY Budget. Very
seriously doubt that.


alloak41 - 6/19/2016 at 12:59 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Luke, neither Hillary nor Trump are nice, neither care about the people. So what is it really that makes you hate one and not the other?

Bingo! We have a winner. This is why non-partisan folks like me have no trouble saying they both suck. The dilemma is that if you are going to vote you need to decide to vote for one of the sucky mainstream candidates, or one of the 3rd party candidates who can not win. No matter how you look at it this election is going to suck. Arguments over which candidate sucks worse should not be taken to mean that the other candidate doesn't suck, even if to a lesser degee than the suckiest candidate. It's like saying that just because brussel sprouts suck worse than broccoli that broccoli is good. No, broccoli sucks, just not as bad as brussel sprouts. Green beans are good, but they are not on the menu.


Same as pretty much any other election. What's different this cycle is the presence of a true outsider, Mr. Trump. Somebody from the business world should get a chance. Someone who cut his teeth in the private economy.

Outsider? Bwwaaaaa aaa haahahaha aha ha hhhaaaa!

Cruz: Trump Posing as an Outsider Is Among 'Greatest Frauds' in Modern History
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/30/ted-cruz-hannity-trump-pretending-be- outsider-one-greatest-frauds-modern-electoral

Paul: Trump is an insider pretending to be an outsider
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/250663-paul-trump-is-an-i nsider-pretending-to-be-an-outsider

Political outsider Donald Trump, the most politician-y politician ever
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/political-outsider-donald-trump-the -most-politiciany-politician-ever/2016/05/05/52f113c4-12fd-11e6-8967-7ac733 c56f12_story.html



How many elected political positions has he held? How many years has he spent working in the
public sector? What State did he serve as an elected official and who did he defeat in those
elections?


jkeller - 6/19/2016 at 01:53 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Luke, neither Hillary nor Trump are nice, neither care about the people. So what is it really that makes you hate one and not the other?

Bingo! We have a winner. This is why non-partisan folks like me have no trouble saying they both suck. The dilemma is that if you are going to vote you need to decide to vote for one of the sucky mainstream candidates, or one of the 3rd party candidates who can not win. No matter how you look at it this election is going to suck. Arguments over which candidate sucks worse should not be taken to mean that the other candidate doesn't suck, even if to a lesser degee than the suckiest candidate. It's like saying that just because brussel sprouts suck worse than broccoli that broccoli is good. No, broccoli sucks, just not as bad as brussel sprouts. Green beans are good, but they are not on the menu.


Same as pretty much any other election. What's different this cycle is the presence of a true outsider, Mr. Trump. Somebody from the business world should get a chance. Someone who cut his teeth in the private economy.

Outsider? Bwwaaaaa aaa haahahaha aha ha hhhaaaa!

Cruz: Trump Posing as an Outsider Is Among 'Greatest Frauds' in Modern History
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/30/ted-cruz-hannity-trump-pretending-be- outsider-one-greatest-frauds-modern-electoral

Paul: Trump is an insider pretending to be an outsider
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/250663-paul-trump-is-an-i nsider-pretending-to-be-an-outsider

Political outsider Donald Trump, the most politician-y politician ever
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/political-outsider-donald-trump-the -most-politiciany-politician-ever/2016/05/05/52f113c4-12fd-11e6-8967-7ac733 c56f12_story.html



How many elected political positions has he held? How many years has he spent working in the
public sector? What State did he serve as an elected official and who did he defeat in those
elections?


You need to look up what an outsider is. You could try Google like you told someone else in another thread.


2112 - 6/19/2016 at 04:33 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Trump's tax plan is the ultimate gamble in putting more money into the economy by cutting taxes which leads to growth. Pretty much all experts agree that it will add about $10 trillion to the deficit, where they split is on the growth impact of such a move.


It's never worked before, but I'm sure it will this time.


Kennedy and Reagan might disagree.

If you feel the government does not collect enough revenue, there's a form to file with your taxes
whereby you can send more than you owe. Don't make your fellow citizens do it for you.

[Edited on 6/18/2016 by alloak41]


Then they would be wrong. Taxes are pretty much at an all time low now. You should be loving the economy now then.


gondicar - 6/19/2016 at 03:24 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Luke, neither Hillary nor Trump are nice, neither care about the people. So what is it really that makes you hate one and not the other?

Bingo! We have a winner. This is why non-partisan folks like me have no trouble saying they both suck. The dilemma is that if you are going to vote you need to decide to vote for one of the sucky mainstream candidates, or one of the 3rd party candidates who can not win. No matter how you look at it this election is going to suck. Arguments over which candidate sucks worse should not be taken to mean that the other candidate doesn't suck, even if to a lesser degee than the suckiest candidate. It's like saying that just because brussel sprouts suck worse than broccoli that broccoli is good. No, broccoli sucks, just not as bad as brussel sprouts. Green beans are good, but they are not on the menu.


Same as pretty much any other election. What's different this cycle is the presence of a true outsider, Mr. Trump. Somebody from the business world should get a chance. Someone who cut his teeth in the private economy.

Outsider? Bwwaaaaa aaa haahahaha aha ha hhhaaaa!

Cruz: Trump Posing as an Outsider Is Among 'Greatest Frauds' in Modern History
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/30/ted-cruz-hannity-trump-pretending-be- outsider-one-greatest-frauds-modern-electoral

Paul: Trump is an insider pretending to be an outsider
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/250663-paul-trump-is-an-i nsider-pretending-to-be-an-outsider

Political outsider Donald Trump, the most politician-y politician ever
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/political-outsider-donald-trump-the -most-politiciany-politician-ever/2016/05/05/52f113c4-12fd-11e6-8967-7ac733 c56f12_story.html



How many elected political positions has he held? How many years has he spent working in the
public sector? What State did he serve as an elected official and who did he defeat in those
elections?

Never having held elected office doesn't make him an outsider. It just means he has no experience on that side of the fence. Quite different from being an outsider, but I think you know that even if you won't admit it.


alloak41 - 6/19/2016 at 03:59 PM

quote:
Same as pretty much any other election. What's different this cycle is the presence of a true outsider, Mr. Trump. Somebody from the business world should get a chance. Someone who cut his teeth in the private economy.

Outsider? Bwwaaaaa aaa haahahaha aha ha hhhaaaa!

Cruz: Trump Posing as an Outsider Is Among 'Greatest Frauds' in Modern History
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/30/ted-cruz-hannity-trump-pretending-be- outsider-one-greatest-frauds-modern-electoral

Paul: Trump is an insider pretending to be an outsider
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/250663-paul-trump-is-an-i nsider-pretending-to-be-an-outsider

Political outsider Donald Trump, the most politician-y politician ever
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/political-outsider-donald-trump-the -most-politiciany-politician-ever/2016/05/05/52f113c4-12fd-11e6-8967-7ac733 c56f12_story.html



How many elected political positions has he held? How many years has he spent working in the
public sector? What State did he serve as an elected official and who did he defeat in those
elections?

Never having held elected office doesn't make him an outsider. It just means he has no experience on that side of the fence. Quite different from being an outsider, but I think you know that even if you won't admit it.


On the contrary. What I mean by outsider is NON-POLITICIAN. Your meaning might differ, which
is fine. Just wanted to clarify what I meant by it. Now you know.


alloak41 - 6/19/2016 at 04:03 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Trump's tax plan is the ultimate gamble in putting more money into the economy by cutting taxes which leads to growth. Pretty much all experts agree that it will add about $10 trillion to the deficit, where they split is on the growth impact of such a move.


It's never worked before, but I'm sure it will this time.


Kennedy and Reagan might disagree.

If you feel the government does not collect enough revenue, there's a form to file with your taxes
whereby you can send more than you owe. Don't make your fellow citizens do it for you.

[Edited on 6/18/2016 by alloak41]


Then they would be wrong. Taxes are pretty much at an all time low now. You should be loving the economy now then.


Tax revenues are at pretty much an all-time high. Do you feel this has been good for the economy and
the (non) recovery?


gondicar - 6/19/2016 at 09:32 PM

quote:
quote:
Same as pretty much any other election. What's different this cycle is the presence of a true outsider, Mr. Trump. Somebody from the business world should get a chance. Someone who cut his teeth in the private economy.

Outsider? Bwwaaaaa aaa haahahaha aha ha hhhaaaa!

Cruz: Trump Posing as an Outsider Is Among 'Greatest Frauds' in Modern History
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/30/ted-cruz-hannity-trump-pretending-be- outsider-one-greatest-frauds-modern-electoral

Paul: Trump is an insider pretending to be an outsider
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/250663-paul-trump-is-an-i nsider-pretending-to-be-an-outsider

Political outsider Donald Trump, the most politician-y politician ever
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/political-outsider-donald-trump-the -most-politiciany-politician-ever/2016/05/05/52f113c4-12fd-11e6-8967-7ac733 c56f12_story.html



How many elected political positions has he held? How many years has he spent working in the
public sector? What State did he serve as an elected official and who did he defeat in those
elections?

Never having held elected office doesn't make him an outsider. It just means he has no experience on that side of the fence. Quite different from being an outsider, but I think you know that even if you won't admit it.


On the contrary. What I mean by outsider is NON-POLITICIAN. Your meaning might differ, which
is fine. Just wanted to clarify what I meant by it. Now you know.

That's like trying to define Jim Leyland as a baseball outsider because he was never a player...the definition just doesn't fit.


pops42 - 6/19/2016 at 11:04 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Trump's tax plan is the ultimate gamble in putting more money into the economy by cutting taxes which leads to growth. Pretty much all experts agree that it will add about $10 trillion to the deficit, where they split is on the growth impact of such a move.


It's never worked before, but I'm sure it will this time.


Kennedy and Reagan might disagree.

If you feel the government does not collect enough revenue, there's a form to file with your taxes
whereby you can send more than you owe. Don't make your fellow citizens do it for you.

[Edited on 6/18/2016 by alloak41]


Then they would be wrong. Taxes are pretty much at an all time low now. You should be loving the economy now then.


Tax revenues are at pretty much an all-time high. Do you feel this has been good for the economy and
the (non) recovery?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaa!


Bhawk - 6/20/2016 at 02:55 PM

The convention is in 28 days and Trump just fired his campaign manager. That's pretty interesting.


bob1954 - 6/20/2016 at 03:16 PM

quote:
The convention is in 28 days and Trump just fired his campaign manager. That's pretty interesting.

Maybe he figured the season finale is coming up. Did he do it on TV in a fake board room?


Bhawk - 6/20/2016 at 09:05 PM

Trump's head of communications just got fired for a celebratory tweet about the campaign manager's firing. That's pretty interesting.


bob1954 - 6/20/2016 at 09:43 PM

quote:
Trump's head of communications just got fired for a celebratory tweet about the campaign manager's firing. That's pretty interesting.

He "resigned".


Bhawk - 6/20/2016 at 10:33 PM

quote:
quote:
Trump's head of communications just got fired for a celebratory tweet about the campaign manager's firing. That's pretty interesting.

He "resigned".


That's pretty interesting...


LeglizHemp - 6/20/2016 at 10:36 PM


That's pretty interesting...


new catch phrase Bhawk? I like it


gina - 6/21/2016 at 12:11 AM

The Donald J Trump Campaign for President, which has set a historic record in the Republican primary having received almost 14 million votes, has today announced that Corey Lewandowski will no longer be working with the campaign, Campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks said in a statement on Monday. The campaign is grateful to Corey for his hard work and dedication and we wish him the best in the future, she added. Lewandowski was reportedly informed of his dismissal on Monday morning and surprised at Trumps decision. "Lewandowski and Manafort reportedly struggled over the control of the campaign over the past few months. According to a campaign source, Lewandowski also had a conflict with the campaign spokeswoman that Ivanka, Trumps daughter, did not like. Another sources also said that Lewandowski had clashed with Jared Kushner, Trumps son-in-law, in recent weeks."


http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/06/20/471340/US-Trump-Corey-Lewandowski-M anafort-Ivanka-Trump

Trump is doing an interview that will air on Bill O'Reilly's show. Lewandowski said he did not know WHY he was fired. Nobody gave him a reason? CNN reports the final straw was Eric Trump asking for him to be fired, after Ivanka had been unhappy with him due to alleged conflicts with her husband.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/corey-lewandowski-out-as-trump-campa ign-manager/index.html


Remarks: We know the Trump Empire is a dynasty and all the children work for the organization, but seriously, should they wield their power to get him fired if he did not do anything wrong, just because they disliked him? Maybe that's how it is in all family run businesses. I cannot imagine what Capitol Hill will be like if he gets in the White House, and has to deal with Senators and Congressmen who do not agree with him and he cannot fire them. His Cabinet will be the ones who get the wrath!



[Edited on 6/21/2016 by gina]


gina - 6/21/2016 at 12:26 AM

Oh boy, it was a boardroom for Lewandowski

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/trump-kids-ousted-corey-lewand owski.html

At around 9:30 Monday morning, Donald Trump and his adult children gathered for a regular strategy meeting at Trump Tower. Also present were senior staff, including Corey Lewandowski, the campaign's embattled manager. With Trump coming off one of the worst weeks of his campaign a stretch that included racist attacks on a federal judge, renewed calls in the wake of the Orlando massacre to ban Muslim immigrants, and sinking poll numbers the candidate's children, who have been involved in strategy from the beginning, saw an opening to achieve a shared goal: Fire Lewandowski.

According to two sources briefed on the events, the meeting was a setup. Shortly after it began, the children peppered Lewandowski with questions, asking him to explain the campaign's lack of infrastructure. "They went through the punch list. 'Where are we with staffing? Where are we with getting the infrastructure built?'" one source explained. Their father grew visibly upset as he heard the list of failures. Finally, he turned to Lewandowski and said, "What's your plan here?"

Lewandowski responded that he wanted to leak Trump's vice-president pick.

And with that, Lewandowski was out Shortly after the meeting, Lewandowski was escorted out of the building by Trump security.



LeglizHemp - 6/21/2016 at 01:21 AM

i still say Drumpf has no desire to be President. This is all about Branding. Firing this guy is all about keeping others onboard more than about he was a problem.....to continue the narrative of Drumpf is a great man.


sixty8 - 6/21/2016 at 01:37 AM

It wouldn't matter if he hired a reincarnated Albert Einstein to run his campaign. Stubborn Sarah Trump wouldn't listen to any of his advice anyway because Trump is smarter than Einstein or anyone else. Trump listens to nobody but Trump. He has the greatest brain ever! HUGE!!!


LeglizHemp - 6/21/2016 at 01:42 AM

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/donald-trump-cancels-trip-to-irel and-next-week-34803288.html

Donald Trump cancels trip to Ireland next week


gondicar - 6/21/2016 at 07:15 PM

Trump has $1.3 million on hand on May 31st. Presidential campaigns with more cash on hand than Trump on May 31st:

Ben Carson ($1.7M)
Ted Cruz ($6.8M)
Bernie Sanders ($9.2M)

Donald Trump Starts Summer Push With Crippling Money Deficit
Donald J. Trump enters the general election campaign laboring under the worst financial and organizational disadvantage of any major party nominee in recent history, placing both his candidacy and his party in political peril.

Mr. Trump began June with just $1.3 million in cash on hand, a figure more typical for a campaign for the House of Representatives than the White House. He trailed Hillary Clinton, who raised more than $28 million in May, by more than $41 million, according to reports filed late Monday night with the Federal Election Commission.

He has a staff of around 70 people compared with nearly 700 for Mrs. Clinton suggesting only the barest effort toward preparing to contest swing states this fall. And he fired his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, on Monday, after concerns among allies and donors about his ability to run a competitive race.

Full article: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/politics/donald-trump-money-campaig n.html


StratDal - 6/22/2016 at 03:03 AM

quote:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/donald-trump-cancels-trip-t o-ireland-next-week-34803288.html

Donald Trump cancels trip to Ireland next week


The Irish should thank his travel agent in spades...


gondicar - 6/22/2016 at 05:50 PM

From the ever-expanding "Trump Tells It Like It Is - Not" files...

Speaking to a group of evangelical Christian leaders, Donald Trump claimed theres nothing out there about Hillary Clintons religion even though shes been in the public eye for years and years. Thats inaccurate. Clintons religious practice as a Methodist has been well-documented and widely reported.

Trumps comments came during a closed-to-the-press meeting with evangelical leaders in New York City, but his comments were videotaped by one of the faith leaders and posted on the internet. The video begins with Trump saying, dont know anything about Hillary in terms of religion.

Now, shes been in the public eye for years and years, and yet theres no theres nothing out there, Trump continued. Theres like nothing out there. Its going to be an extension of Obama but its going to be worse, because with Obama you had your guard up. With Hillary you dont, and its going to be worse.

In fact, there is a lot out there about Clintons religion, and its influence on her world view, starting with her religious involvement as a child.

According to the Religious News Service, As a girl, she was part of the guild that cleaned the altar at First United Methodist Church in Park Ridge, Ill. As a teen, she visited inner-city Chicago churches with the youth pastor, Don Jones, her spiritual mentor until his death in 2009.

A Time magazine profile, which ran under the headline Hillary Clinton: Anchored by Faith, had this to say about Clintons early religious training:

Time, June 27, 2014: Clinton grew up attending First United Methodist Church of Park Ridge in Chicago, where she was confirmed in sixth grade. Her mother taught Sunday school, and Clinton was active in youth group, Bible studies and altar guild. On Saturdays during Illinoiss harvest season, she and others from her youth group would babysit children of nearby migrant workers.

The article notes that in college at Wellesley, Clinton regularly read the Methodist Churchs Motive magazine, that she and Bill Clinton were married by a Methodist minister, and that in 1993, she joined a womens prayer group.

When Bill Clinton was president, the Clinton family regularly attended Washingtons Foundry United Methodist Church. Hillary Clinton spoke at the churchs 200 anniversary in September. In that address, she spoke about the Methodist churches she attended as a child, in college, in Arkansas when Bill Clinton was governor, and in Washington, D.C., when he served as president.

In place after place after place, Clinton said, the Methodist church and my fellow Methodists have been a source of support, honest reflection and candid critique.

During a presidential forum in 2007, Clinton said that a lot of the talk about and advertising about faith doesnt come naturally to me. She said that faith is something that you know, I keep thinking of the Pharisees and all of Sunday school lessons and readings that I had as a child. But I think your your faith guides you every day. Certainly, mine does. But, at those moments in time when youre tested, it it is absolutely essential that you be grounded in your faith.

CNN noted that in May 2015, Clinton impressed a voter in a bakery after she cited and discussed Corinthians 13 on the spot.

In an interview with the New York Times in 2014, Clinton cited the Bible as the biggest influence on her thinking. I was raised reading it, memorizing passages from it and being guided by it, she said. I still find it a source of wisdom, comfort and encouragement.

As a senator, she participated in weekly Senate prayer breakfasts. The New York Times noted that she was also once a Sunday school teacher.

That article goes on to say: In a brief quiz about her theological views, Mrs. Clinton said she believed in the resurrection of Jesus, though she described herself as less sure of the doctrine that being a Christian is the only way to salvation. As for how literally to interpret the Bible, she takes a characteristically centrist view.

Although Clinton rarely speaks about her religious faith on the campaign trail, she did in length when a woman asked her about it at a campaign rally in Iowa in January. Clinton began, I am a Christian. I am a Methodist. Here is some, but not all, of the rest of her answer.

Clinton, Jan. 25: I am a Christian. I am a Methodist. I have been raised Methodist. I feel very grateful for the instructions and support I received starting in my family but through my church, and I think that any of us who are Christian have a constantly, constant, conversation in our own heads about what we are called to do and how we are asked to do it, and I think it is absolutely appropriate for people to have very strong convictions and also, though, to discuss those with other people of faith. Because different experiences can lead to different conclusions about what is consonant with our faith and how best to exercise it.

My study of the Bible, my many conversations with people of faith, has led me to believe the most important commandment is to love the Lord with all your might and to love your neighbor as yourself, and that is what I think we are commanded by Christ to do, and there is so much more in the Bible about taking care of the poor, visiting the prisoners, taking in the stranger, creating opportunities for others to be lifted up, to find faith themselves that I think there are many different ways of exercising your faith.

There is even an entire book devoted to Clintons faith, God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life. The author, Paul Kengor, executive director of the Center for Vision & Values at the conservative Grove City College, writes in the preface that some things regarding Hillary Clinton and her faith are clear: Although no one can profess to know any individuals heart and soul, there seems no question that Hillary is a sincere, committed Christian and has been since childhood.

In an interview with Christianity Today, Kengor said that Clinton has often butted heads with conservative evangelical Christians on issues such as abortion, and that Clinton walks step by step with the Methodist leadership into a very liberal Christianity. She is with them lockstep on almost all issues.

We do, in fact, know about Hillarys religion, Kengor wrote to us in an email. In fact, we know enough about Hillarys faith that I was able to write a 334-page book titled God and Hillary Clinton way back in 2007, and Ive written dozens of articles and given numerous interviews on the subject sinceand Im not the only one. I think that what Donald Trump was telling us is that he knows nothing about Hillarys faith. For me as a conservative, that doesnt surprise me one bit, as Ive noticed painfully and repeatedly that Donald Trump also knows nothing about conservatism.

We could go on and on about the public treatment of Clintons faith. But suffice to say that when Trump says theres nothing out there about Hillary Clintons religion, thats just not so.

We should note that the Hill and others reported that Trump said, we dont know anything about Hillary in terms of religion. The emphasis on we is ours.

Later in the day, David Muir of ABCs World News Tonight asked Trump about his comments, and Trump responded, I dont know much about her.

Trump said his comments were prompted by a question from someone at the event.

Somebody asked me the question, Trump said. I didnt bring it up. Somebody asked me the question. I said I dont know much about her religion.

Based on the tape, we couldnt determine whether Trump said we dont know anything about Clintons religion or I dont know anything about her religion.

ABC News reported, A source who attended the meeting said that no one asked about Clintons religion. We couldnt determine that either, based on the available video.

We reached out to E.W. Jackson, the man who posted the clip on Twitter, to see if he had a fuller version of Trumps remarks, but we did not hear back from him. Jackson, a conservative religious leader, is president of the national organization Ministers Taking a Stand. Nonetheless, Trumps comments extended beyond responding to what he, personally, knew about Clintons religion, to include the claim that despite being in the public eye for years and years there is nothing out there on Clintons religion.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/we-know-plenty-about-clintons-religion/


LeglizHemp - 6/22/2016 at 05:59 PM

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/donald-trump-accused-rape-federal-cou rt-lawsuit


Donald Trump Accused of Rape in Federal Court Lawsuit

The assaults are alleged to have taken place at the home of billionaire and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

By Kali Holloway / AlterNet

June 21, 2016


tbomike - 6/22/2016 at 07:05 PM

quote:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/donald-trump-accused-rape-feder al-court-lawsuit


Donald Trump Accused of Rape in Federal Court Lawsuit

The assaults are alleged to have taken place at the home of billionaire and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

By Kali Holloway / AlterNet

June 21, 2016



It appears Donald Trump may have known about Epstein's predilections. Years ago in an interview with New York Magazine Trump said, "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,'' Trump booms from a speakerphone. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life."


LeglizHemp - 6/22/2016 at 07:28 PM

here is some background I posted back in february

https://news.vice.com/article/the-salacious-ammo-even-donald-trump-wont-use -in-a-fight-against-hillary-clinton-bill-clinton


gondicar - 6/22/2016 at 07:34 PM

quote:
quote:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/donald-trump-accused-rape -federal-court-lawsuit


Donald Trump Accused of Rape in Federal Court Lawsuit

The assaults are alleged to have taken place at the home of billionaire and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

By Kali Holloway / AlterNet

June 21, 2016



It appears Donald Trump may have known about Epstein's predilections. Years ago in an interview with New York Magazine Trump said, "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,'' Trump booms from a speakerphone. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life."



Wow, I hope that he at least said that before Epstein was arrested.


LeglizHemp - 6/22/2016 at 09:35 PM

i'll just go ahead and say it now. those who will defend him have the same right to do so as those who defended Clinton. do the degree's of difference matter (if this is as true as the other)? wellllllllll, she was 13, you decide and own your choice.


gina - 6/22/2016 at 10:25 PM

quote:
It wouldn't matter if he hired a reincarnated Albert Einstein to run his campaign. Stubborn Sarah Trump wouldn't listen to any of his advice anyway because Trump is smarter than Einstein or anyone else. Trump listens to nobody but Trump. He has the greatest brain ever! HUGE!!!


Not to mention his "nice hands" as he called them, when Little Marco tried to accuse him of being short changed.


OriginalGoober - 6/23/2016 at 01:49 AM

His speech today was so uplifting. I encourage everyone to listen to it. If he continues to stay this focused than its over folks. Great speech.

[Edited on 6/23/2016 by OriginalGoober]


LeglizHemp - 6/23/2016 at 01:52 AM

ROFL


gondicar - 6/23/2016 at 09:34 AM

quote:
His speech today was so uplifting. I encourage everyone to listen to it. If he continues to stay this focused than its over folks. Great speech.


Trumps Attack on Clintons Character
Presumptive GOP nominee gets facts wrong on Benghazi, Middle East refugees, gifts from Brunei and more.

SUMMARY

Donald Trumps once delayed, and much anticipated, speech on Hillary Clintons character, included numerous false and misleading statements:

Trump falsely claimed that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was left helpless to die as Hillary Clinton soundly slept in her bed. Two emails from Clinton show that she was awake after it was learned that Stevens had died in the attack on the diplomatic facility in Benghazi.

Trump misleadingly claimed that Clinton accepted $58,000 in jewelry from the government of Brunei when she was secretary of state. He didnt mention that the gift was accepted on behalf of the United States, and that it was transferred to the General Services Administration.

Trump claimed without any evidence that Clinton wants to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to settle Middle Eastern refugees in the United States. The numbers dont add up. The total refugee budget was $1.67 billion in fiscal 2016, so it is unlikely that Clinton could add hundreds of billions to the budget for refugee assistance.

Trump overstated his case when he claimed the U.S. trade deficit with China soared 40 percent during Hillary Clintons time as secretary of state. It went up 17 percent, and we note that trade is under the purview of the Commerce Department, not the State Department.

Trump blamed Clinton for the disastrous strategy of announcing our departure from Iraq, handing large parts of the country over to ISIS and the ISIS killers. The departure date was set by President George W. Bush. President Obama made the ultimate call to keep the scheduled departure date, not Clinton.

Trump falsely claimed that Clinton would end virtually all immigration enforcement and thus create totally open borders for the United States. Clinton supported a Senate immigration bill that would create a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally, but it also would have included large investments in border security.

Trump falsely claimed that the private server that Clinton used as secretary of state was easily hacked by foreign governments. Attempts were made to hack into Clintons server, but the identity of the hackers has not been determined and there has been no evidence to date that any of them were successful.

Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clintons State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of Americas uranium holdings to Russia. The transfer was approved by a committee headed by the Treasury Department and made up of nine voting members throughout government, including one from the State Department.

Trump claimed he was opposed to the Iraq war before the war ever started. There is no evidence of that.

Trump wrongly said that real wages for our workers have not been raised for 18 years. Average weekly earnings for production and non-supervisory employees are up 10 percent, adjusted for inflation and seasonal factors, over that time period.

Trump described the North American Free Trade Agreement as Bill Clintons disastrous and totally disastrous NAFTA. President Clinton signed the legislation to implement NAFTA, but the agreement itself was negotiated and signed by President George H. W. Bush.

ANALYSIS

Click to read entire article: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/trumps-attack-on-clintons-character/


MartinD28 - 6/23/2016 at 01:09 PM

quote:
quote:
His speech today was so uplifting. I encourage everyone to listen to it. If he continues to stay this focused than its over folks. Great speech.


Trumps Attack on Clintons Character
Presumptive GOP nominee gets facts wrong on Benghazi, Middle East refugees, gifts from Brunei and more.

SUMMARY

Donald Trumps once delayed, and much anticipated, speech on Hillary Clintons character, included numerous false and misleading statements:

Trump falsely claimed that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was left helpless to die as Hillary Clinton soundly slept in her bed. Two emails from Clinton show that she was awake after it was learned that Stevens had died in the attack on the diplomatic facility in Benghazi.

Trump misleadingly claimed that Clinton accepted $58,000 in jewelry from the government of Brunei when she was secretary of state. He didnt mention that the gift was accepted on behalf of the United States, and that it was transferred to the General Services Administration.

Trump claimed without any evidence that Clinton wants to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to settle Middle Eastern refugees in the United States. The numbers dont add up. The total refugee budget was $1.67 billion in fiscal 2016, so it is unlikely that Clinton could add hundreds of billions to the budget for refugee assistance.

Trump overstated his case when he claimed the U.S. trade deficit with China soared 40 percent during Hillary Clintons time as secretary of state. It went up 17 percent, and we note that trade is under the purview of the Commerce Department, not the State Department.

Trump blamed Clinton for the disastrous strategy of announcing our departure from Iraq, handing large parts of the country over to ISIS and the ISIS killers. The departure date was set by President George W. Bush. President Obama made the ultimate call to keep the scheduled departure date, not Clinton.

Trump falsely claimed that Clinton would end virtually all immigration enforcement and thus create totally open borders for the United States. Clinton supported a Senate immigration bill that would create a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally, but it also would have included large investments in border security.

Trump falsely claimed that the private server that Clinton used as secretary of state was easily hacked by foreign governments. Attempts were made to hack into Clintons server, but the identity of the hackers has not been determined and there has been no evidence to date that any of them were successful.

Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clintons State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of Americas uranium holdings to Russia. The transfer was approved by a committee headed by the Treasury Department and made up of nine voting members throughout government, including one from the State Department.

Trump claimed he was opposed to the Iraq war before the war ever started. There is no evidence of that.

Trump wrongly said that real wages for our workers have not been raised for 18 years. Average weekly earnings for production and non-supervisory employees are up 10 percent, adjusted for inflation and seasonal factors, over that time period.

Trump described the North American Free Trade Agreement as Bill Clintons disastrous and totally disastrous NAFTA. President Clinton signed the legislation to implement NAFTA, but the agreement itself was negotiated and signed by President George H. W. Bush.

ANALYSIS

Click to read entire article: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/trumps-attack-on-clintons-character/


Facts & truths seem to have a way of evading Trump. Amazing that he consistently beats the drum of calling Cruze and now HC liars. The various factchecks over time have shown Trump to be King Of The Hill on inaccuracy & fabrication.

Have never seen a candidate talk to his competition (Jeb, Marco, Cruze, & HC) like Trump does. Degrading, condescending, and labeling via nicknames seem a bit sophomorish for someone running for POTUS.

But what does one expect from the guy that referred to dating Ivanka if she wasn't his daughter? That's almost as good as the rest of his many zingers including his now repulsive statement about Megyn Kelly, "There was blood coming out of her whatever". Very becoming for a presidential candidate, but he's "Going to make America great again". What a dignified and classy guy Donald is.


BoytonBrother - 6/23/2016 at 02:47 PM

You are right. But I don't see Trump as the problem. I can respect some Trump supporters who simply look past his ignorance because they believe the country needs toughness and a revived economy - whether Trump would actually deliver that is a whole different topic. But if someone told me they were supporting Trump for those reasons, and they simply ignore the circus sideshow b/c they see it as a necessary evil in the game of politics, I could respect that.

But I truly believe that an overwhelming majority of his voters are low-life, degenerate, dysfunctional, angry, hateful, ignorant people - the ones that come to his rally and threaten minorities. Those are the ones voting for the first time in their lives, simply because they hear someone be angry and ignorant, just like they are. And they tipped him to the nomination. The videos of these types of people are disturbing, and it has nothing to do with politics - they exist on all sides. But those videos are evidence of a broken society, broken homes, and a broken educational system. That should be a small percentage of any society, but it seems like there are enough of them in America to secure a nomination to a candidate such as Trump.

My priority moving forward is improving our educational system to make them the best in the world. Don't make all healthcare free, but quality mental health should be free and available everywhere with ease, or incorporated into our schools' curriculums. Peaceful homes and better education creates less crime, better health and therefore a better healthcare system free from the burden of treating lifestyle illnesses, better ideas, better choices, better leaders, etc.

[Edited on 6/23/2016 by BoytonBrother]


gondicar - 6/23/2016 at 02:51 PM

quote:
But I truly believe that an overwhelming majority of his voters are low-life, degenerate, dysfunctional, angry, hateful, ignorant people - the ones that come to his rally and threaten minorities.


You mean like this guy?

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/go-fcking-make-my-tortilla-unhinged-trump- protester-goes-batsht-insane-on-hispanic-protester/


LeglizHemp - 6/23/2016 at 02:59 PM

I like this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh0eCcg9BTk

Donald Trump Supporter Confronts Protester In A Donkey Costume


MartinD28 - 6/23/2016 at 03:31 PM

quote:
quote:
But I truly believe that an overwhelming majority of his voters are low-life, degenerate, dysfunctional, angry, hateful, ignorant people - the ones that come to his rally and threaten minorities.


You mean like this guy?

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/go-fcking-make-my-tortilla-unhinged-trump- protester-goes-batsht-insane-on-hispanic-protester/




He's chairman of the Trump "Get Out The Vote...Make America Great Again" committee.


tbomike - 6/23/2016 at 03:34 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
But I truly believe that an overwhelming majority of his voters are low-life, degenerate, dysfunctional, angry, hateful, ignorant people - the ones that come to his rally and threaten minorities.


You mean like this guy?

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/go-fcking-make-my-tortilla-unhinged-trump- protester-goes-batsht-insane-on-hispanic-protester/




He's chairman of the Trump "Get Out The Vote...Make America Great Again" committee.


Nah, this guy is.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/06/22/tennessee-congress ional-candidate-make-america-white-again/86248816/


alanwoods - 6/23/2016 at 03:52 PM

quote:


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/06/22/tennessee-congress ional-candidate-make-america-white-again/86248816/


Polk County is just down the road from where I live. Beautiful place. But, it's also where you go to show your kids wott happens when you screw your sister.

Edit - 96.7% white with a population of just over 16,000 and average income of $16,000. It's no cultural center.

Edit, Edit... Most recent Census Bureau data reports a per capita income of $20,000.

[Edited on 6/23/2016 by alanwoods]

[Edited on 6/23/2016 by alanwoods]


tbomike - 6/23/2016 at 04:17 PM

quote:
quote:


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/06/22/tennessee-congress ional-candidate-make-america-white-again/86248816/


Polk County is just down the road from where I live. Beautiful place. But, it's also where you go to show your kids wott happens when you screw your sister.

Edit - 96.7% white with a population of just over 16,000 and average income of $16,000. It's no cultural center.

Edit, Edit... Most recent Census Bureau data reports a per capita income of $20,000.

[Edited on 6/23/2016 by alanwoods]

[Edited on 6/23/2016 by alanwoods]


What is that like a couple hours from Knoxville? I worked on a dairy farm in White Pine in 1977/78. Doesn't seem from the census figures that the guy really needs the billboard. lol


alanwoods - 6/23/2016 at 04:22 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/06/22/tennessee-congress ional-candidate-make-america-white-again/86248816/


Polk County is just down the road from where I live. Beautiful place. But, it's also where you go to show your kids wott happens when you screw your sister.

Edit - 96.7% white with a population of just over 16,000 and average income of $16,000. It's no cultural center.

Edit, Edit... Most recent Census Bureau data reports a per capita income of $20,000.

[Edited on 6/23/2016 by alanwoods]

[Edited on 6/23/2016 by alanwoods]


What is that like a couple hours from Knoxville? I worked on a dairy farm in White Pine in 1977/78. Doesn't seem from the census figures that the guy really needs the billboard. lol


Maybe not quite 2 hours from Knoxville down US 411. It's in the extreme southeast corner of Tennessee, bordered by North Carolina and Georgia.


gondicar - 6/24/2016 at 03:49 PM

Trump is a huge, er I mean YUGE, foreign policy disaster just waiting to happen...


Donald Trump's Brexit Reaction Missed a Big Yuge, Even Detail About Scotland

GOP presumptive nominee Donald Trump hailed Scotland for voting to leave the European Union on Friday morning after landing in the country to check on his golf resort in Turnberry.

In a tweet, Trump wrote he saw Scotland "going wild over the vote" when he landed. "They took their country back, just like we will take America back," Trump continued. "No games!"

But here's the thing: Scotland didn't vote to exit the EU.

In fact, the country voted widely in favor of remaining by 62% to 38%, though the United Kingdom as a whole decidedly voted to leave the union.

Trump then posted a statement on Facebook regarding the decision, noting, "I hope America is watching."

This sharply contradicts what he said just days before in an interview with Fox Business Network. "I don't think anybody should listen to me, because I haven't really focused on it very much," he said. "But my inclination would be to get out, because you know, just go it alone."

Meanwhile, Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon told an Edinburgh press conference that the decision to exit the EU means a second referendum for Scottish independence is "now on the table."

"As things stand, Scotland faces the prospect of being taken out of the EU against our will. I regard that as democratically unacceptable," Sturgeon said.

Trump will return from his one-day stint in Scotland on Saturday to continue his campaign's pivot to the general election.

https://mic.com/articles/146995/donald-trump-s-brexit-reaction-missed-a-big -yuge-even-detail-about-scotland#.cDj767mCp


LeglizHemp - 6/24/2016 at 03:58 PM

Trump blames Obama for Brexit
Donald Trump says that UK's vote to leave the European Union "might have been different" if President Obama had not voiced his support for EU unity.Source: CNN

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/06/24/trump-blames-obama-brexit.cnn

so Trump says its Obama's fault and that it is a good thing. what an amazing mind.


gondicar - 6/24/2016 at 04:03 PM

An amazing mind indeed....

Trumps Scottish trip is a bigger mistake than he realizes
By Steve Benen 06/23/16 08:45 AM

Theres a fair amount of precedent for presidential candidates traveling abroad ahead of the election. In July 2008, for example, then-Sen. Barack Obama wowed international audiences with a historic visit to Berlin. Almost exactly four years later, in July 2012, Mitt Romney took an overseas trip of his own. (It really didnt go well for the Republican.)

So when Donald Trumps campaign said the presumptive GOP nominee would travel to Scotland ahead of the Republican convention, it was only natural to assume Trump was headed abroad to bolster his foreign policy credentials.

But as the New York Times reported, the truth is a little more complicated...

His campaign is desperately short of cash. He has struggled to hire staff. Influential Republicans are demanding that he demonstrate he can run a serious general election campaign.

But, for reasons that emphasize just how unusual a candidate he is, Donald J. Trump is leaving the campaign trail on Thursday to travel to Scotland to promote a golf course his company purchased on the countrys southwestern coast.


This may sound like some sort of joke, but its quite real. This isnt a situation in which an American presidential hopeful has scheduled meetings with foreign officials, and hes checking in on his business interests while hes there; its largely the opposite. Trumps Scottish sojourn appears to have practically nothing to do with the office hes seeking.

The Times report added that Trumps business interests still drive his behavior, and his schedule. He has planned two days in Scotland, with no meetings with government or political leaders scheduled. The Republicans itinerary reads like a public relations junket crossed with a golf vacation, complete with a ceremonial ribbon cutting.

Scott W. Reed, senior political strategist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, added, Everyone knows this is the wrong thing for the nominee to be doing now, and it is amazing this cant be stopped.

Wait, its even more amazing than that.

If the Scottish golf course were a wildly successful venture, Trump could at least point to this as evidence of his prowess as an international businessman.

Indeed, Trump has made exactly such an effort. In a Scottish newspaper, he recently wrote an op-ed with a headline that read, How Scotland will help me become president. In the piece, the Republican candidate wrote, When I first arrived on the scene in Aberdeen, the people of Scotland were testing me to see just how serious I was just like the citizens in the United States have done about my race for the White House. I had to win them over I had to convince them that I meant business and that I had their best interests in mind. Well, Scotland has already been won and so will the United States.

The problem, as the Washington Post reported yesterday, is that the entire venture has been a bit of a disaster...

To many people in Scotland, his course here has been a failure. Over the past decade, Trump has battled with homeowners, elbowed his way through the planning process, shattered relationships with elected leaders and sued the Scottish government. On top of that, he has yet to fulfill the lofty promises he made.

Trump has also reported to Scottish authorities that he lost millions of dollars on the project even as he claims on U.S. presidential disclosure forms that the course has been highly profitable.


In early May, Trump, in an entirely serious way, pointed to his role in the Miss Universe beauty pageant as evidence of his international experience. Unfortunately for the GOP candidate, his Scottish golf course is his other piece of evidence, and its a failure.


alanwoods - 6/24/2016 at 04:23 PM

http://www.wbir.com/news/politics/elections/make-america-white-again-campai gn-signs-removed/255193260


gondicar - 6/24/2016 at 08:37 PM

The replies to Trump's Brexit response tweet are hilarious, especially when you imagine them being said with a really thick Scottish accent.

A sampling...





MartinD28 - 6/24/2016 at 09:32 PM

Trump's roaring success (not) in yet another business venture - this one in Scotland. Another example of his hype & rhetoric detached from reality.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-scotland-g olf-course-20160622-story.html


BrerRabbit - 6/24/2016 at 10:02 PM

ferret wearing sh*tgibbon!


bob1954 - 6/24/2016 at 10:18 PM

quote:
The replies to Trump's Brexit response tweet are hilarious, especially when you imagine them being said with a really thick Scottish accent.

A sampling...






Pretty funny, but they sound like they were all written by the same person.


pops42 - 6/24/2016 at 10:25 PM

quote:
quote:
The replies to Trump's Brexit response tweet are hilarious, especially when you imagine them being said with a really thick Scottish accent.

A sampling...






Pretty funny, but they sound like they were all written by the same person.
Bwahahahahaha.


LeglizHemp - 6/25/2016 at 12:28 AM

i can be a little dense sometimes so can someone help me out?

trump said that his new course has been open a few weeks and had been booked from dawn to dusk every day.
i for get what a round of golf there costs......lets say it was 250 pounds
trump also said more people would come because now it will be cheaper because the pound dropped in value.
if the course is booked for all available hours already
and the value of the pound dropped

how does this make more money for trump?


bob1954 - 6/25/2016 at 01:45 AM

quote:
i can be a little dense sometimes so can someone help me out?

trump said that his new course has been open a few weeks and had been booked from dawn to dusk every day.
i for get what a round of golf there costs......lets say it was 250 pounds
trump also said more people would come because now it will be cheaper because the pound dropped in value.
if the course is booked for all available hours already
and the value of the pound dropped

how does this make more money for trump?

He loses a little on each round but he makes it up on volume.


LeglizHemp - 6/25/2016 at 01:57 AM

quote:
quote:
i can be a little dense sometimes so can someone help me out?

trump said that his new course has been open a few weeks and had been booked from dawn to dusk every day.
i for get what a round of golf there costs......lets say it was 250 pounds
trump also said more people would come because now it will be cheaper because the pound dropped in value.
if the course is booked for all available hours already
and the value of the pound dropped

how does this make more money for trump?

He loses a little on each round but he makes it up on volume.


volume as the days are getting shorter on an already booked course? very confusing


gondicar - 6/25/2016 at 02:02 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
i can be a little dense sometimes so can someone help me out?

trump said that his new course has been open a few weeks and had been booked from dawn to dusk every day.
i for get what a round of golf there costs......lets say it was 250 pounds
trump also said more people would come because now it will be cheaper because the pound dropped in value.
if the course is booked for all available hours already
and the value of the pound dropped

how does this make more money for trump?

He loses a little on each round but he makes it up on volume.


volume as the days are getting shorter on an already booked course? very confusing


Makes perfect sense to Trump though.


gondicar - 6/25/2016 at 02:03 AM

Interesting...


http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/24/politics/rnc-delegate-lawsuit-donald-trump/in dex.html


gina - 6/25/2016 at 06:43 PM

If everyone who is pissed off in this country donated $1 dollar to Trump's campaign, he would have enough campaign funds. Those who can do more, should. We have 320 million people in the US, how many of those are poor, dis-enfranchised, individually they can do nothing, but as a group, they do have power.


MartinD28 - 6/25/2016 at 10:11 PM

quote:
If everyone who is pissed off in this country donated $1 dollar to Trump's campaign, he would have enough campaign funds. Those who can do more, should. We have 320 million people in the US, how many of those are poor, dis-enfranchised, individually they can do nothing, but as a group, they do have power.



What a waste of a $1.

Would prefer to put a dollar into a street musician's guitar case any day than to give to Trump.


jkeller - 6/25/2016 at 11:09 PM

quote:
If everyone who is pissed off in this country donated $1 dollar to Trump's campaign, he would have enough campaign funds. Those who can do more, should. We have 320 million people in the US, how many of those are poor, dis-enfranchised, individually they can do nothing, but as a group, they do have power.




If I fell into that category, Trump would be the last person who would get my dollar. Besides, he claims he has billions. Why would he need money from anyone? He wouldn't lie about his wealth and success, would he?


alloak41 - 6/26/2016 at 12:15 AM

quote:
Trump's roaring success (not) in yet another business venture - this one in Scotland. Another example of his hype & rhetoric detached from reality.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-scotland-g olf-course-20160622-story.html


He's toast when this gets out. Put fork in him.


jkeller - 6/26/2016 at 01:34 AM

quote:
quote:
Trump's roaring success (not) in yet another business venture - this one in Scotland. Another example of his hype & rhetoric detached from reality.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-scotland-g olf-course-20160622-story.html


He's toast when this gets out. Put fork in him.


In other words, you got nothing and cannot defend Trump. Got it.


Muleman1994 - 6/28/2016 at 06:32 PM

quote:
quote:
If everyone who is pissed off in this country donated $1 dollar to Trump's campaign, he would have enough campaign funds. Those who can do more, should. We have 320 million people in the US, how many of those are poor, dis-enfranchised, individually they can do nothing, but as a group, they do have power.




If I fell into that category, Trump would be the last person who would get my dollar. Besides, he claims he has billions. Why would he need money from anyone? He wouldn't lie about his wealth and success, would he?

________________________________________________________________________

At least, unlike Hillary Clinton, he doesn't take campaign contributions from foreign governments that support Islamic Extremist Terrorism and enslave women.

Hillary has to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
Not so amazingly, many of those foreign governments got U.S. weapons deals approved by Hillary Clinton's State Department.





bob1954 - 6/28/2016 at 06:50 PM

quote:
At least, unlike Hillary Clinton, he doesn't take campaign contributions from foreign governments that support Islamic Extremist Terrorism and enslave women.

That may be true if you don't count profits from business operations as contributions. Then again, it may not be true either way. How would you know?


Muleman1994 - 6/28/2016 at 08:55 PM





The source data comes from the Clinton Foundation's financial reporting after they re-re-re filed after being caught falsifying the first two reports.






[Edited on 6/28/2016 by Muleman1994]


Muleman1994 - 6/28/2016 at 09:06 PM

CNN botches proven fact about Clinton Foundation 1,100 hidden foreign donations
http://www.newstarget.com/2016-06-27-cnn-botches-proven-fact-about-clinton- foundation-1100-hidden-foreign-donations.html

EXCLUSIVE: Cryptic NY Filing Revealed Clinton Foundation Foreign Donations
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/14/exclusive-cryptic-ny-filing-revealed-clin ton-foundation-foreign-donations/

Clinton Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-29/clinton-foundation-fa iled-to-disclose-1-100-foreign-donations

Clinton attacks foreign government donations, ignores cash given to her foundation
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/27/clinton-attacks-foreign-governme nt-donations-ignores-cash-given-to-her-foundation.html


gondicar - 6/29/2016 at 02:24 PM

""Risk analysts listed Donald Trump, a Donald Trump presidency, as one of the top threats facing the global economy, ahead of terrorism," Clinton said in her speech yesterday. We found this claim to be True."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/27/hillary-clin ton/hillary-clinton-correct-analysts-have-called-donal/


gondicar - 6/29/2016 at 02:33 PM

Truth-o-meter comparison:


http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/


http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

For the math challenged...

Mostly False, False, Pants On Fire for Trump = 77%

Mostly False, False, Pants On Fire for Clinton = 27%






[Edited on 6/29/2016 by gondicar]


Brendan - 6/29/2016 at 02:57 PM

None of that matters. He's an outsider who has business experience. He deserves a chance. Truth, smuth.


bob1954 - 6/29/2016 at 04:27 PM

quote:
None of that matters. He's an outsider who has business experience. He deserves a chance. Truth, smuth.

LOL...I keep hearing Trump deserves a chance, but when was the last time anyone won a presidential election because they "deserve a chance"? That's a good reason to put the dorky kid in right field in the last inning of a little league game, but it's not much of a reason to vote for a world leader.


MartinD28 - 6/29/2016 at 06:21 PM

quote:
quote:
None of that matters. He's an outsider who has business experience. He deserves a chance. Truth, smuth.

LOL...I keep hearing Trump deserves a chance, but when was the last time anyone won a presidential election because they "deserve a chance"? That's a good reason to put the dorky kid in right field in the last inning of a little league game, but it's not much of a reason to vote for a world leader.

X2

Chances are taken at the craps table in Atlantic City at the casinos...at least for those of Trump's casinos that haven't gone bankrupt.


OriginalGoober - 6/29/2016 at 06:35 PM

quote:
None of that matters. He's an outsider who has business experience. He deserves a chance. Truth, smuth.


Don't you work for a wall street bank? I understand you have to vote to protect your personal interests, and Too Big to Fail is all in with Hillary, or Jeb for that matter. I bet you were ready to stump for low energy Jebbie too.



Brendan - 6/29/2016 at 06:44 PM

quote:
quote:
None of that matters. He's an outsider who has business experience. He deserves a chance. Truth, smuth.


Don't you work for a wall street bank? I understand you have to vote to protect your personal interests, and Too Big to Fail is all in with Hillary, or Jeb for that matter. I bet you were ready to stump for low energy Jebbie too.



No way man. I'm totally on the Trump-mobile. I mean, the guy cut his teeth in the private sector. What more could someone like me ask for? Decorum? Statesmanship? Honesty? Pfffft. Overrated.... I too am much more interested in commerce than love of country.


bob1954 - 6/29/2016 at 06:49 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
None of that matters. He's an outsider who has business experience. He deserves a chance. Truth, smuth.


Don't you work for a wall street bank? I understand you have to vote to protect your personal interests, and Too Big to Fail is all in with Hillary, or Jeb for that matter. I bet you were ready to stump for low energy Jebbie too.



No way man. I'm totally on the Trump-mobile. I mean, the guy cut his teeth in the private sector. What more could someone like me ask for? Decorum? Statesmanship? Honesty? Pfffft. Overrated.... I too am much more interested in commerce than love of country.

Once you realize that if we get rid of all the Mexicans and Muslims we'll all have jobs and be happy the choice becomes clear.


MartinD28 - 6/29/2016 at 06:52 PM

quote:
quote:
None of that matters. He's an outsider who has business experience. He deserves a chance. Truth, smuth.


Don't you work for a wall street bank? I understand you have to vote to protect your personal interests, and Too Big to Fail is all in with Hillary, or Jeb for that matter. I bet you were ready to stump for low energy Jebbie too.





Sorry to disappoint, but I don't work in that industry. My interests are primarily social values, and for that reason I vote for liberal candidates.

Quite frankly, Jeb was a much better candidate on policy issues as a GOP contender than Trump. Trump is a neophyte compared to Jeb on policy. But this is the year of GOP anger so Trump wins the nomination within a very divided party.


gondicar - 6/29/2016 at 07:09 PM

Trump is now sparring with the US Chamber of Commerce, typically a stalwart backer of GOP candidates, because they called his economic proposals "dangerous". So, here we have a pro-business lobbying group calling the economic plan of the outsider candidate with business experience "dangerous" despite the fact that our business-savvy contributors here thinks he "deserves a chance" because he supposedly knows how to run a country like a business...very interesting...



Donald Trump tangles with business leaders before Bangor rally

WASHINGTON Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump fired back at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday, saying the nations largest business association needed to fight harder for American workers, after it issued a scathing criticism of his economic platform.

The Washington-based lobbying group, which represents the nations largest corporations and business interests, is typically a reliable backer of Republican policies. But it took issue with Trumps vocal opposition to international trade deals, calling his proposals dangerous ideas that would push the United States into another recession.

Trump struck back on Wednesday, saying the organization needed to fight harder for American workers.

Why would the USChamber be upset by the fact that I want to negotiate better and stronger trade deals or that I want penalties for cheaters? the wealthy businessman wrote on Twitter.

In speeches on Tuesday, Trump called for renegotiating or scrapping the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, which he called job killer, and reiterated his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership among 12 Pacific Rim countries. He also singled out Chinas trade and currency policies for criticism.

The Chamber has consistently backed international trade deals.

The public disagreement between the presumptive Republican nominee and the business group was unusual, one of a series of reminders that Trump still struggles with uniting his party. The Republicans and many business leaders tend to share policy goals and work in lockstep. Many business leaders have also traditionally been big donors to Republican candidates.

But fighting against trade deals has proven successful for Trump among voters concerned about the loss of manufacturing jobs.

Peter Navarro, a Trump trade policy adviser, defended the candidates position.

Heres the central point to understand: The White House has been utterly and completely soft on Chinas illegal trade practices, said Navarro, a professor at the University of California, Irvine. The status quo is the worst of all possible worlds for the United States.

Trump, who was slated to speak in Bangor, Maine, later on Wednesday, took criticism for his trade speech from both sides of the political aisle.

In a call organized by Democrat Hillary Clintons campaign, U.S. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, a former businessman and tech entrepreneur, said that while the country needed to do a better job protecting workers, more resources should be put into training them for a new economy.

The Democratic lawmaker criticized Trumps remarks supporting the British decision to leave the European Union.

The truth is if you are entrusted with positions of responsibility, words matter, your tone matters, your confidence matters and on all of those indicators Donald Trump has failed the test of tone or tenor for leadership, Warner said.

Clinton held no public campaign events on Wednesday but did announce she would campaign next week with President Barack Obama for the first time this year.

The presumptive Democratic nominee and Trump are almost certain to face off in the Nov. 8 general election.

http://bangordailynews.com/2016/06/29/politics/elections/donald-trump-tangl es-with-business-leaders-before-bangor-rally/


(now waiting for muleman aka liar-in-chief to chime in and tell us that the US Chamber of Commerce is a left wing blog in 3, 2, 1...)






[Edited on 6/29/2016 by gondicar]


gondicar - 6/29/2016 at 07:31 PM

More on the US Chamber's reaction to the presumptive GOP nominee's speech on trade the other day...


Chamber of Commerce rips Trump's trade speech in real time
As Trump spoke, the organization posted a point-by-point rebuttal on social media.

By Nick Gass
06/28/16 03:18 PM EDT
Updated 06/28/16 04:59 PM EDT

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce answered Donald Trump's trade policy speech on Tuesday by attempting to pick apart the presumptive Republican nominee's policies point by point, engaging in a rapid-fire succession of social media posts hitting him for his opposition to international trade deals.

In a post published before Trump took to the stage at a raw aluminum producer in Monessen, Pennsylvania, the chamber laid out the stakes for trade in both Pennsylvania and in Ohio. (The Republican is set to hold a rally in St. Clairsville, Ohio later Tuesday evening.)

"Trade is no panacea. Some workers lose their jobs to international competition, just as technological change and shifting consumer tastes regularly put some manufacturers out of business," wrote John G. Murphy, the chamber's senior vice president for international policy. "Its appropriate for the federal government to provide these workers with training and transition assistance and of a better quality than current federal programs."

"But contrary to rumor, the benefits of trade greatly outweigh the costs," Murphy wrote. "In fact, trade has been a lifeline for many more workers in Pennsylvania and Ohio especially in the wake of the recession."

During Trump's address, Murphy tweeted, "US companies invest abroad to tap cheap labor? Actually ... " sharing a link to a Chamber LinkedIn article headlined "The 10 Most Overlooked Facts About International Investment."

The Chamber then shared another one of Murphy's articles from May, titled "The NAFTA the Candidates Haven't Met," following up with multiple tweets touting the benefits of the trade agreement with Mexico and Canada.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-trade-speech-chamber-of-commerc e-reaction-224900#ixzz4Czy8tlJ0

[Edited on 6/29/2016 by gondicar]


LeglizHemp - 6/29/2016 at 07:48 PM

http://www.vice.com/read/trump-economic-plan-is-wrong

Donald Trump Is an Incoherent Leftist When It Comes to Free Trade

By Harry Cheadle
Senior Editor
June 29, 2016

On Tuesday, Donald Trump stood before a backdrop of compacted aluminum in Monessen, Pennsylvania, and did what he does best: explain to people why they should be mad as hell.

"The legacy of Pennsylvania steelworkers lives in the bridges, railways and skyscrapers that make up our great American landscape," he told the crowd, mostly reading from prepared remarks. "But our workers' loyalty was repaid with betrayal. Our politicians have aggressively pursued a policy of globalizationmoving our jobs, our wealth and our factories to Mexico and overseas. Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthyI hate to say it, but I used to be one. But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache."

Trump's xenophobic immigration policies, hawkish bluster, and healthcare "reforms" are mostly in line with traditional GOP thinking. But on economic issues, the subject of his latest speech, he's impossible to pin down, speaking about left-wing ideas in the language of the right, pushing back on the free trade consensus that has dominated both parties for years.

His basic narrative, repeated Tuesday, is that America is losing because countries like China engage in "unfair" trade practices like currency manipulation and subsidized goods, saddling the US with an $800 billion trade deficit (in other words, America imports $800 billion more in goods than it exports). Trump's answer involves threatening China, imposing tariffs, and renegotiatingand potentially withdrawing fromNAFTA.

Economics is a notoriously contentious field, but there's one blanket statement few economists would object to: Trump is very, very wrong about a lot of stuff. Rob Scott, the director of trade and manufacturing at the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank whose work Trump cited on Tuesday, agrees that globalization has caused problems for workers, but doesn't concur with the candidate's solutions.


"Like a drive-by shooting, he fires enough bullets, he's going to hit some things that might look like a policy that works," Scott told VICE. "But it doesn't have a coherence."

"The problem with NAFTA is that we failed to effectively help Mexico develop as part of the agreement," Scott continued. A good model, he said, was what wealthier European nations did for their neighbors like Greece and Spain decades ago, pumping money into their economies to create new markets for goods, thus making a pan-European economy possible.

"We could create such a vision and implement a truly united North American economy that worked for everybody but nobody's put that on the table," he said. "Certainly Trump is not talking about thathe's talking about building walls."


Joshua Meltzer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, had other problems with Trump's speech. For one, Trump "completely misunderstands what the trade deficit means for the US economy." Exporting more than you import isn't a sign of economic healthfor instance, Japan has a trade surplus, and "no one would say Japan has a strong economy."

Meltzer and Scott disagree about many topics that Trump touched on, including the benefits of globalizationbut neither of them thought much of the politician's plans.

Meltzer thinks that on a basic level, Trump doesn't understand how trade deals like the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) work. "He's got this very simple, zero-sum game of trade," he said. "His view is that some countries have to win and some countries have to lose. He's incapable of understanding that trade negotiations are a win-win for all parties, that the US is better off if these other countries are also doing well."

Trump seems oddly fixated on trade negotiations as a way to improve the economy, which doesn't really make sense according to Scott, and the Republican candidate's preference for bilateral trade deals over multi-country arrangements like TPP is similarly confusing.

"I have to intuit what he's trying to say there," said Scott, "but my guess is that he thinks that somehow he as a person, as a negotiator, could have more leverage dealing one-on-one with individual countries and could get more out of them than if he had to deal with 11 countries at once."

Some things Trump says are just flat wrong, like his contention that the US is "one of the most highest-taxed nations in the world" or the notion that politicians have done "nothing" about cheap steel being dumped on US markets (in fact, Chinese steelmakers have been punished with tariffs). Maybe strangest of all, Trump insisted that "the TPP creates a new international commission that makes decisions the American people can't veto."

"The TPP would not establish any kind of organization," Meltzer said.


But voters, unlike economists, don't pay attention to the wonkish details of speeches. Trump isn't a brainy candidateyou have to go a couple feet down to find the body parts he appeals toand on a basic level, it's not exactly wrong to say that elites have gotten rich as the manufacturing middle class that sustained American cities died off. It's just weird that a Republican is saying it.

Since Bill Clinton decided to support NAFTA, which had already been endorsed by the GOP, after taking office in 1993, the two parties have mostly agreed that free trade is good, with most of the opposition to it coming from the left. But Trump's success shows that the Republican blue-collar base is open to his kind of anti-globalization talkeven as pro-business GOP pillars like the Chamber of Commerce publicly denounce it.

Trump's ideas are echoed in plenty of other places. Bernie Sanders sounded some of the same notes in a New York Times op-ed published Wednesday, writing that, "We need to fundamentally reject our 'free trade' policies and move to fair trade." Even Hillary Clinton, maybe pressured by Sanders's strong support among liberal voters, has seemingly abandoned the TPP, though it remains to be seen what she'll actually do if and when she becomes president.

For that matter, it's unclear what Trump would be willing or able to do if he were sitting in the Oval Office, especially since a lot of what he proposes, including tariffs, would have to be passed by Congress. The white men Trump was appealing to in Pennsylvania may like what he said, but what about the white men in Congress?

"In the 2012 election, Romney complained about currency manipulation from China. And Obama complained about currency manipulation," Scott said. "The problem is that when they get in office, we've not had leaders of either party who have been able or willing to put together effective trade and manufacturing policies to rebuild the manufacturing sector."


LeglizHemp - 6/29/2016 at 08:23 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-singer-donald-trump-depression_us_ 57741502e4b0bd4b0b1353a0?bdjvxwatv7s2nsif6r


Billionaire GOP Donor Says Trump Could Create Widespread Global Depression

The Never Trump movement is still going strong.

Shane Ferro
Business Reporter, The Huffington Post
06/29/2016 04:11 pm ET

A Wall Street billionaire thinks a Donald Trump presidency could spell doom for the global economy.

Paul Singer, who runs the hedge fund Elliott Management and has been a big GOP donor in the past, told a crowd at the Aspen Ideas Festival that he wasnt very impressed with Trumps economic policy positions, according to CNBC.

The most impactful of the economic policies that I recall him coming out for are these anti-trade policies. And I think if he actually stuck to those policies and gets elected president, its close to a guarantee of a global depression, widespread global depression, he said.

Trump laid out his economic policy plans in a speech in Pennsylvania on Tuesday. He said he would renegotiate all the countrys trade deals, and hinted at a trade war with China.

Singer has been a big supporter of the Never Trump movement, and was a big supporter of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio before Rubio dropped out of the Republican primary race. Singer and Trump have been slinging insults at each other throughout the campaign.

Dont mistake Singer for a Hillary Clinton supporter, though. Apparently he told the room he is considering voting for himself as a write-in. (While he is not a politician, he does have some foreign policy experience: his hedge fund once seized one of Argentinas naval vessels.)


gondicar - 6/30/2016 at 03:30 PM

Some buyers remorse setting in already, or has it always been this way?


2 Months After Donald Trump Clinched the Nomination, Half of Republicans Want Someone Else

There was little positive news for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in a Fox News poll released Wednesday night.

Not only is the bombastic billionaire trailing presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, 38% to 44% a 7-point drop since the last Fox News poll in May, but more than half of GOP primary voters would rather have someone else as their nominee.



Trump's support among Republicans has also dropped since May, with 74% of Republicans saying they support him over Clinton. That figure is down from 82% last month, after he wrapped up the Republican nomination on May 3.

A whopping 83% of voters also described Trump as "obnoxious," while 89% said he is "hot headed" two attributes not usually associated with a commander in chief.

Clinton, on the other hand, has the support of 83% of Democrats. But the poll showed she has work to do to win over supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders only 66% of whom said they are backing Clinton.

Eighty-two percent of voters view Clinton as "intelligent," while 77% describe her as "experienced."

But Clinton is struggling to earn voters' trust, with only 30% saying she's "honest and trustworthy."

"While our polling shows a clear positive trend for Clinton, her 6-point lead is notably small considering voters almost universally think Trump is hot-headed and obnoxious, and most think he's inexperienced," Chris Anderson, one of the conductors of the poll, told Fox News.

https://mic.com/articles/147478/2-months-after-donald-trump-clinched-the-no mination-half-of-republicans-want-someone-else#.cEriDVk0Y



[Edited on 6/30/2016 by gondicar]


Gloucester-mass - 6/30/2016 at 05:24 PM

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_ 2016/white_house_watch

Thursday, June 30, 2016

The tables have turned in this weeks White House Watch. After trailing Hillary Clinton by five points for the prior two weeks, Donald Trump has now taken a four-point lead.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 43% of the vote, while Clinton earns 39%. Twelve percent (12%) still like another candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)


jkeller - 6/30/2016 at 05:35 PM

quote:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/ele ction_2016/white_house_watch

Thursday, June 30, 2016

The tables have turned in this weeks White House Watch. After trailing Hillary Clinton by five points for the prior two weeks, Donald Trump has now taken a four-point lead.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 43% of the vote, while Clinton earns 39%. Twelve percent (12%) still like another candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)



Rasmussen has a poor track record in presidential polls. They ranked 20th out of 23 pollsters in 2012 with a heavy bias towards Republicans.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best- and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/?_r=0#more-37396


Just sayin'


gondicar - 6/30/2016 at 06:14 PM

quote:
quote:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/electio ns/election_2016/white_house_watch

Thursday, June 30, 2016

The tables have turned in this weeks White House Watch. After trailing Hillary Clinton by five points for the prior two weeks, Donald Trump has now taken a four-point lead.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 43% of the vote, while Clinton earns 39%. Twelve percent (12%) still like another candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)



Rasmussen has a poor track record in presidential polls. They ranked 20th out of 23 pollsters in 2012 with a heavy bias towards Republicans.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best- and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/?_r=0#more-37396

Just sayin'


It is also the only organization that has Trump ahead in a national poll...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/


LeglizHemp - 6/30/2016 at 07:05 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-donald-trump-trade-na fta-china-korea-chapman-0630-jm-20160629-column.html

Column: On trade, Donald Trump is an encyclopedia of error

By Steve ChapmanContact Reporter

June 29, 2016, 4:02 PM

Donald Trump is not a professor, but for years he will be yielding insights to every student of economics. His Tuesday address on trade did a masterful job of combining antiquated fallacies with misinformation and ignorance to create an encyclopedia of error. Instructors have never had so much free help constructing their lesson plans.

The vision Trump conjures is one of alluring simplicity. He promises to achieve "economic independence" by abandoning globalization, instead using American workers to produce American goods. This change, he said, would "create massive numbers of jobs" and "make America wealthy again."

It's a scam, skillfully pitched to fool the gullible. His framework is a house of cards built on sand in a wind tunnel. Its most noticeable feature is a total divorce from basic economic realities.

He scoffs at those who warn he would start a trade war. "We already have a trade war, and we're losing, badly," he said. But what he objects to is everyday global commerce, which is not a form of war. It's a form of peaceful cooperation for mutual advantage.

In a war, the Japanese drop bombs on Pearl Harbor that we don't want. In trade, they sell us TV sets and cars that we do want. See the difference?

In war, both sides lose, because their people get killed. In trade, buyers and sellers in each country win which is why they trade with each other. What's true of individual consumers and producers is also true of nations.

Trump, however, thinks our economic troubles stem from the destruction of manufacturing production and employment, which he blames on foreign competitors. He's wrong on every point of this addled argument.

In the first place, the expansion of manufacturing jobs is not synonymous with prosperity. As countries grow richer, manufacturing's share of employment declines. South Korea, singled out by Trump for killing American jobs, has seen it shrink by nearly half since 1991. Japan and Germany have followed a similar path.

But U.S. manufacturing output is 54 percent higher today than in 1994 and 27 percent higher than in 2001. Those years are pertinent because 1994 was the year NAFTA took effect and 2001 is the year China gained entry to the World Trade Organization events Trump portrays as catastrophic for American industry.

Manufacturing jobs have vanished not because we don't manufacture anything but because companies have learned to produce more goods with fewer people. Higher productivity is what eliminated most of the jobs Trump mourns. He's no more capable of restoring them than he is of bringing back the dodo.

"NAFTA was the worst trade deal in the history of this country," he exclaimed. But he gives no sign of knowing what it actually did.

The main provision was removing import duties among the U.S., Mexico and Canada. Before, the average tariff on Mexican goods coming here was 4.3 percent while the average tariff on U.S. goods going there was 12.4 percent.

So under NAFTA, Mexico had to cut its import duties much more than we cut ours. Even by Trump's logic, how could that have been bad for Americans?

Trump would have us believe that producers abroad succeed only because they have a free hand to cheat. "When subsidized foreign steel is dumped into our markets, threatening our factories, the politicians have proven ... they do nothing," he charged.

Wrong again. At the moment, the U.S. government is punishing allegedly unfair trade practices with special duties on 338 different imports nearly half of them steel products.

Blaming Mexico and China for the fate of our steel industry is like blaming email for the decline of telegrams. The biggest reduction in steel jobs came before the globalization of the past two decades. The number fell from 450,000 to 210,000 in the 1980s.

The total today is about 150,000. Even if Trump could manage the impossible feat of doubling the number of steelmaking jobs, it would be a blip in the overall economy which adds more jobs than that every month.

All he would achieve by putting up trade barriers, imposing tariffs and treating our trading partners as enemies is to inflate the cost of imported goods which would lower the living standard of every American household.

A Trump presidency would be useful for economists because it would serve to refute his misconceptions about trade just as a massive mudslide in Los Angeles is useful to physicists in dramatizing the power of gravity. But everyone else is advised to flee.

Steve Chapman, a member of the Tribune Editorial Board


Brendan - 6/30/2016 at 07:41 PM

None of that matters. He's an outsider with business experience. He deserves a chance to be the leader of the free world despite his woeful ignorance of the world. The connection is null and void but folks just won't let go of it even though it's intellectually lazy nonsense.


bob1954 - 6/30/2016 at 08:04 PM

quote:
None of that matters. He's an outsider with business experience. He deserves a chance to be the leader of the free world despite his woeful ignorance of the world. The connection is null and void but folks just won't let go of it even though it's intellectually lazy nonsense.

That should have been Trump's campaign slogan: "He deserves a chance." Almost as good as Kinky's slogan:


jkeller - 6/30/2016 at 08:48 PM

quote:
None of that matters. He's an outsider with business experience. He deserves a chance to be the leader of the free world despite his woeful ignorance of the world. The connection is null and void but folks just won't let go of it even though it's intellectually lazy nonsense.




On the job training. Yeah, that's the ticket.


alloak41 - 6/30/2016 at 09:34 PM

quote:
None of that matters. He's an outsider with business experience. He deserves a chance to be the leader of the free world despite his woeful ignorance of the world.


You build a team around you, experts in their field of endeavor. You can't become a world
class entrepreneur without massive team building capabilities.


jkeller - 6/30/2016 at 09:48 PM

quote:
quote:
None of that matters. He's an outsider with business experience. He deserves a chance to be the leader of the free world despite his woeful ignorance of the world.


You build a team around you, experts in their field of endeavor. You can't become a world
class entrepreneur without massive team building capabilities.


You need to read about this guy before you make statements like that. First, he inherited his wealth. Most of it was in NYC real estate. Even a complete moron would make money just by sitting on that. Trump branched out into casinos and failed. He started an airline. That failed also. He started Trump University. Failure and the subject to multiple lawsuits. He is hardly a business expert. He also surrounds himself with yes men. Failure to worship The Donald results in quick unemployment.

There is nothing in his resume that shows him to be capable of being POTUS. Dictator of a banana republic? Sure, but then again, they don't usually last very long.


bob1954 - 6/30/2016 at 10:25 PM

quote:
He also surrounds himself with yes men.

...and hotties.


gina - 6/30/2016 at 10:46 PM

quote:
quote:
None of that matters. He's an outsider with business experience. He deserves a chance to be the leader of the free world despite his woeful ignorance of the world. The connection is null and void but folks just won't let go of it even though it's intellectually lazy nonsense.

That should have been Trump's campaign slogan: "He deserves a chance." Almost as good as Kinky's slogan:




All these people did not want to give Donald a chance.

World Forum of the neo-con American Enterprise Institute (AEI), held in a luxury resort on Sea Island, Georgia, March 3-6, 2016. They flew in by private jets. Seventy private jets landed there. Heres a list of the AEI World Forum attendees:

(1) High-tech billionaires:
◾Apple CEO Tim Cook
◾Google co-founder Larry Page
◾Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker
◾Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk

(2) GOP political lites:
◾Political guru Karl Rove
◾Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky)
◾House Speaker Paul Ryan
◾Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.).
◾Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (Mich.)
◾Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas)
◾Kevin McCarthy (Calif.)
◾Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.),
◾Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.)
◾Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas)
◾Diane Black (Tenn.)

In addition to the Sea Island meeting, according to Bloomberg, there are yet other stop Trump conspiracies: A trio of conservative groups not affiliated with any candidate has spent about $28 million against [Trump], mostly on negative ads that aired in the past few weeks. So far, the effort has failed to dent his popularity.

According to FEC filings, contributors to the stop Trump conservative groups include:
◾The Warren brothers, Stephens and Jackson, who gave a total of $3.5 million last month to two of the groups, on top of $500,000 last year. Stephens Warren has given a total of $300,000 to super-PACs supporting Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and Chris Christie, all of whom have since dropped out.
◾The Ricketts family of Omaha, Nebraska have given $5 million since January.
◾New York hedge-fund manager Paul Singer gave $1 million.
◾San Francisco investor William Oberndorf gave $500,000.
◾Club for Growth: A super-PAC run by Club for Growth (CFG), a powerful conservative group that pushes for limited government and lower taxes, is one of the first organizations to take on Trump. According to The New York Times, the super PAC raised $4 million in February, three times as much as it had raised any other month this election cycle. Donors include: ◾The Warren brothers gave $2.5 million in February.
◾Richard Uihlein, an Illinois shipping-supplies manufacturer who backed Gov. Scott Walkers campaign last year, gave the Club for Growth $500,000.
◾Richard Gaby, who gave $50,000 to a super PAC backing former Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana.
◾Robert Arnott, a California-based investor who has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into groups backing Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.
◾Robert Mercer, who backs Ted Cruz, gave $100,000.

◾A political network led by billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch, which is the biggest and deepest-pocketed independent political force in the conservative world.


nebish - 7/1/2016 at 12:34 AM

With Bernie Sanders soon out of the race officially, the only candidate that is speaking about the remnants of the 'giant sucking sound' is Trump.

How about some economic nationalism.

I guess you'd rather Kia grow by leaps and bounds continually taking market share from US and foreign Auto companies with large footprint and assembly operations here. What Kia builds 2 or 3 of their models here out of their 10 or 12 on dealers lots. Good ratio for them. Lots of margin, and hell of a competitive advantage. Great for US workers.

More Korean appliances for your home? Great! Put downward pressure on the wages of US workers building GE and Maytag appliances. Sounds great, yes, let's have more of that! I think it is time for some real competition for these fat US companies, how about some Chinese cars and large appliances in on our dealer lots and big box stores? Bravo to that, yes! We'll just keep selling American workers down the river. OH, don't worry, we'll make sure you can earn $15 an hour working that cash register. Lots of value added in that job son.

Seriously, screw the chamber of commerce and screw the establishment Republican and Democrat leaders and their behind the scene trade lawyers and lobbyists that pull the strings on the trade deals. And really, when is the last time anyone from the left pretended to care what the chamber of commerce said regarding economic policy? Only now as they both set their eyes on Trump.

Vote no on TPP. Vote on on trade promotion authority. Withdraw from the WTO. Renegotiate NAFTA, CAFTA...put American workers and American labor first. Why does China have most favored nation status on trade? Why enrich foreign corporations and foreign countries at the expense of our blue collar tax paying neighbors? And what for US companies wanting to exploit foreign labor markets for products bound for reentry into the US market, treat them with the same rules a foreign company would have.

Trump is a highly flawed candidate. That is clear and obvious. What is also clear and obvious is the disaster that has been unleashed on our country with the trade deals and all the negative aspects that come with the repercussions trickling down to the average Joe. If the shoe was on the other foot, if Hillary was the one bashing the trade situation (like Bernie was) I doubt I'd see even one negative article copy and pasted here.

This isn't a D vs R issue. This is an American issue. Be American, Buy American!


alloak41 - 7/1/2016 at 12:57 AM

Nothing like an old fashioned policy driven discussion.. Is this woman a doctor?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vkdm2tS6xuQ

On and on it goes.....


alloak41 - 7/1/2016 at 02:27 AM

quote:
quote:
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years


Why was that? It's a valid question.

Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.


True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.

Big help.


jkeller - 7/1/2016 at 02:51 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years


Why was that? It's a valid question.

Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.


True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.

Big help.


That coverage has basically reporting whateer Trump says. His words make the coverage negative, not the media,


bob1954 - 7/1/2016 at 03:16 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years


Why was that? It's a valid question.

Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.


True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.

Big help.


That coverage has basically reporting whatever Trump says. His words make the coverage negative, not the media,

It's only negative to clear thinking people. Overall it's seems to have a positive effect for Trump.


alloak41 - 7/1/2016 at 03:24 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years


Why was that? It's a valid question.

Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.


True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.

Big help.


That coverage has basically reporting whatever Trump says. His words make the coverage negative, not the media,

It's only negative to clear thinking people. Overall it's seems to have a positive effect for Trump.


That's true. Problem from the neck up again. What else could it be?

Sorry. I forgot.


gondicar - 7/1/2016 at 11:53 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years


Why was that? It's a valid question.

Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.


True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.

Big help.

Bwaaaa ha ha ahaaaaa haa! You are even more disconnected from reality that I thought.


alloak41 - 7/1/2016 at 01:15 PM

quote:
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years


Why was that? It's a valid question.

Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.


True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.

Big help.

Bwaaaa ha ha ahaaaaa haa! You are even more disconnected from reality that I thought.


And that would surprise you? Aren't all Conservatives handicapped by some kind of mental
problem, low intelligence, insanity, ect?

Where is Donald T. getting all this positive coverage? I see, hear, and read quite a bit of the opposite,
quite a bit being a classic understatement.


gondicar - 7/1/2016 at 02:15 PM

quote:
quote:
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years


Why was that? It's a valid question.

Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.


True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.

Big help.

Bwaaaa ha ha ahaaaaa haa! You are even more disconnected from reality that I thought.


And that would surprise you? Aren't all Conservatives handicapped by some kind of mental
problem, low intelligence, insanity, ect?

Where is Donald T. getting all this positive coverage? I see, hear, and read quite a bit of the opposite,
quite a bit being a classic understatement.

Conservatives have become such victims. So sad.

Coverage is coverage, it's the interpretation of it that is either negative or positive. Trump has gotten so much coverage and so much mileage from that coverage that he hasn't really had to fundraise because he hasn't really had to spend. If there is anything Trump is good at, it is using the media to his advantage. From a media standpoint, this election cycle as it relates to Trump in particular has been unlike anything we've ever seen and will be studied and talked about for years and years.


alloak41 - 7/1/2016 at 02:32 PM

quote:
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years


Why was that? It's a valid question.

Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.


True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.

Big help.

Bwaaaa ha ha ahaaaaa haa! You are even more disconnected from reality that I thought.


And that would surprise you? Aren't all Conservatives handicapped by some kind of mental
problem, low intelligence, insanity, ect?

Where is Donald T. getting all this positive coverage? I see, hear, and read quite a bit of the opposite,
quite a bit being a classic understatement.


Coverage is coverage, it's the interpretation of it that is either negative or positive.



Seriously? So when you flip the TV on and day after day the face on the screen is calling him
a racist, bigot, insane, hates women, hates Mexicans, incites violence, appeals to the lowest
common denominator, hates Muslims, owns a struggling golf course in Scotland.....on and on
and on........some might interpret that as positive coverage?

Wow.


gondicar - 7/1/2016 at 02:41 PM

quote:
quote:
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years


Why was that? It's a valid question.

Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.


True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.

Big help.

Bwaaaa ha ha ahaaaaa haa! You are even more disconnected from reality that I thought.


And that would surprise you? Aren't all Conservatives handicapped by some kind of mental
problem, low intelligence, insanity, ect?

Where is Donald T. getting all this positive coverage? I see, hear, and read quite a bit of the opposite,
quite a bit being a classic understatement.


Coverage is coverage, it's the interpretation of it that is either negative or positive.



Seriously? So when you flip the TV on and day after day the face on the screen is calling him
a racist, bigot, insane, hates women, hates Mexicans, incites violence, appeals to the lowest
common denominator, hates Muslims, owns a struggling golf course in Scotland.....on and on
and on........some might interpret that as positive coverage?

Wow.

Yep, many people are, millions even. I don't get it either, but it is happening. Hence the remainder of my post that you didn't include.




[Edited on 7/1/2016 by gondicar]


bob1954 - 7/1/2016 at 03:00 PM

quote:
Conservatives have become such victims. So sad.

It's true. They did not used to be so whiny. They once were angry, but now they just seem depressed. The good news is that soon they will begin dialog and bargaining on their way to full acceptance and a return to meaningful life.


alloak41 - 7/1/2016 at 03:13 PM

quote:
quote:
Conservatives have become such victims. So sad.

It's true. They did not used to be so whiny. They once were angry, but now they just seem depressed. The good news is that soon they will begin dialog and bargaining on their way to full acceptance and a return to meaningful life.



"Whining" redefined.

Shocking.


alloak41 - 7/1/2016 at 03:20 PM

Simply repeating their own terms and phrases employed day after day by political adversaries
back to them?

Parroting....maybe.


MartinD28 - 7/1/2016 at 04:45 PM

quote:
quote:
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years


Why was that? It's a valid question.

Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.


True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.

Big help.

Bwaaaa ha ha ahaaaaa haa! You are even more disconnected from reality that I thought.


And that would surprise you? Aren't all Conservatives handicapped by some kind of mental
problem, low intelligence, insanity, ect?

Where is Donald T. getting all this positive coverage? I see, hear, and read quite a bit of the opposite,
quite a bit being a classic understatement.


Coverage is coverage, it's the interpretation of it that is either negative or positive.



Seriously? So when you flip the TV on and day after day the face on the screen is calling him
a racist, bigot, insane, hates women, hates Mexicans, incites violence, appeals to the lowest
common denominator, hates Muslims, owns a struggling golf course in Scotland.....on and on
and on........some might interpret that as positive coverage?

Wow.


Go back and listen to his interviews, speeches, and quotes. The things you have described above...well...Donald has earned honestly. The unbelievable words that come out of his mouth have earned him these accuarte descriptions & depictions. One reaps what he sows, and in this case Donald is being rewarded appropriately.

alloak, tell us which items on your list is not accurate and is not justfied. You should be proud to support Donald as he "makes America great again".


alloak41 - 7/1/2016 at 06:43 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years


Why was that? It's a valid question.

Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.


True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.

Big help.

Bwaaaa ha ha ahaaaaa haa! You are even more disconnected from reality that I thought.


And that would surprise you? Aren't all Conservatives handicapped by some kind of mental
problem, low intelligence, insanity, ect?

Where is Donald T. getting all this positive coverage? I see, hear, and read quite a bit of the opposite,
quite a bit being a classic understatement.


Coverage is coverage, it's the interpretation of it that is either negative or positive.



Seriously? So when you flip the TV on and day after day the face on the screen is calling him
a racist, bigot, insane, hates women, hates Mexicans, incites violence, appeals to the lowest
common denominator, hates Muslims, owns a struggling golf course in Scotland.....on and on
and on........some might interpret that as positive coverage?

Wow.


Go back and listen to his interviews, speeches, and quotes. The things you have described above...well...Donald has earned honestly. The unbelievable words that come out of his mouth have earned him these accuarte descriptions & depictions. One reaps what he sows, and in this case Donald is being rewarded appropriately.



Is that fact or opinion?

But back to the question, would a reasonable person consider the "accurate" descriptions and
depictions positive coverage?





[Edited on 7/1/2016 by alloak41]


LeglizHemp - 7/1/2016 at 06:47 PM

I think Trump lives by the old adage " There is no such thing as bad press" in my opinion.


bob1954 - 7/1/2016 at 06:47 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years


Why was that? It's a valid question.

Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.


True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.

Big help.

Bwaaaa ha ha ahaaaaa haa! You are even more disconnected from reality that I thought.


And that would surprise you? Aren't all Conservatives handicapped by some kind of mental
problem, low intelligence, insanity, ect?

Where is Donald T. getting all this positive coverage? I see, hear, and read quite a bit of the opposite,
quite a bit being a classic understatement.


Coverage is coverage, it's the interpretation of it that is either negative or positive.



Seriously? So when you flip the TV on and day after day the face on the screen is calling him
a racist, bigot, insane, hates women, hates Mexicans, incites violence, appeals to the lowest
common denominator, hates Muslims, owns a struggling golf course in Scotland.....on and on
and on........some might interpret that as positive coverage?

Wow.


Go back and listen to his interviews, speeches, and quotes. The things you have described above...well...Donald has earned honestly. The unbelievable words that come out of his mouth have earned him these accuarte descriptions & depictions. One reaps what he sows, and in this case Donald is being rewarded appropriately.



Is that fact or opinion?

But back to the question, would a reasonable person consider the "accurate" descriptions and
depictions positive coverage?

If it helps him towards his goal I suppose it is positive, at least for him. And it seems to be working that way, though I don't know why.


MartinD28 - 7/1/2016 at 07:22 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years


Why was that? It's a valid question.

Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.


True, but about 90% of that free coverage has been negative.

Big help.

Bwaaaa ha ha ahaaaaa haa! You are even more disconnected from reality that I thought.


And that would surprise you? Aren't all Conservatives handicapped by some kind of mental
problem, low intelligence, insanity, ect?

Where is Donald T. getting all this positive coverage? I see, hear, and read quite a bit of the opposite,
quite a bit being a classic understatement.


Coverage is coverage, it's the interpretation of it that is either negative or positive.



Seriously? So when you flip the TV on and day after day the face on the screen is calling him
a racist, bigot, insane, hates women, hates Mexicans, incites violence, appeals to the lowest
common denominator, hates Muslims, owns a struggling golf course in Scotland.....on and on
and on........some might interpret that as positive coverage?

Wow.


Go back and listen to his interviews, speeches, and quotes. The things you have described above...well...Donald has earned honestly. The unbelievable words that come out of his mouth have earned him these accuarte descriptions & depictions. One reaps what he sows, and in this case Donald is being rewarded appropriately.



Is that fact or opinion?

But back to the question, would a reasonable person consider the "accurate" descriptions and
depictions positive coverage?

[Edited on 7/1/2016 by alloak41]


I'd call it fact, but of course you'd call it opinion. How about we label it cause & effect?

As far as positive coverage, Trump loves all coverage, as he is a media whore. If his lies, fabrications, or negative statements earn him another 24 hours of news cycle coverage, he probably sees it as free coverage which in his twisted reasoning is a positive. He's not taking in much money from the usual GOP donors, so he needs all the free & positive coverage he can get. He certainly knows how to grab it when he wants it.


gondicar - 7/6/2016 at 08:43 PM


Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Charges?

07/03/2016 05:02 pm ET | Updated 2 days ago

I dont know about you, but Im getting tired of 2016 presidential election media coverage. Its been a mess since the beginning, when Donald Trump kicked off his campaign with the statement that Mexicans are rapists, and major news channels and newspapers responded by giving him just what he wanted: more coverage than any other candidate.

For months I maintained the position that if we all stopped clicking on Donald Trump headlines, he would go away. But no one was interested in that strategy, and now its too late to implement it. The media played a major role in Donald Trumps rise to power, and now it seems as though they are rooting for him to maintain it.

Two weeks ago, a woman filed a federal lawsuit against Donald Trump, alleging that he raped her in 1994, when she was 13 years old. Also named as a defendant in the lawsuit is Jeffrey Epstein, a man who has already served a year in prison for soliciting an underage prostitute, and who was recently described by Donald Trump as a terrific guy.

This story was first reported on June 20th by The Real Deal, a publication dedicated to covering New York real estate news. It was picked up by Gothamist, The Daily Beast, Snopes, and a few other websites. I did not learn about the case until a friend of mine shared this Huffington Post blog about it. The case was not covered in Huffington Posts news section, nor in the news section of any major publication.

Meanwhile, I received two New York Times push notifications this week with updates about Hillary Clintons emails.

Has the media decided Donald Trump is just so despicable that it isnt worth covering another atrocity allegedly perpetrated by him, while Hillary Clinton is expected to be a perfect human being, so more coverage of her emails serves the public good? Have they decided Donald Trump is just so immune to negative coverage that reporting this lawsuit is a waste of time, while another story on Hillarys email server is guaranteed to make her even more unpopular?

Or, is giving credence to rape accusations against powerful men still socially unacceptable? (Re: Peyton Manning)

Its difficult for me not to think that sexism has a hand in guiding the medias wacky priority list. I know a lot of people are getting tired of accusations of sexism in this presidential race, but sexism would explain why a female candidate sending emails from a private server faces a thousand times more public scrutiny than a male candidate allegedly raping a child.

To reiterate what has already been determined about Hillarys emails: Federal law did not prohibit public officials from using private email accounts until 2014, after she left office, and none of her emails were considered classified at the time she sent them via a private server. And yet, Hillary is branded a criminal, while Donald Trumpwho has now had three legal claims of sexual assault filed against himremains the successful businessman whose greatest offense is his ego.

You can counter that the claims of sexual assault against Donald Trump are unproven in a court of law, and to that I will counter that Hillary has not been convicted of any crimes either. In this country, the principle of innocent until proven guilty tends to serve the privileged. That principle goes out the window when we discuss accusations against women and people of color.

Donald Trump may be a megalomaniac who has no experience in public office and has shocked the entire world by making it this far in the race, but the absurdity of his candidacy does not mean that he should be vetted less critically than his opponent. He may be a racist and a misogynist from whom we can never expect anything but the worst, but the reality is that hes one election away from being the most powerful person on the planet. If we dismiss his transgressions as just being typical of his character, we may allow him to actually hold that power in his hands.

To all the media gatekeepers out there: If you are frustrated by the fact that criticisms of Donald Trump do not dissuade his supporters in the slightest, I sympathize with you. But your frustration is not an excuse for failing to deliver those criticisms which Trump deserves. Perhaps this latest development would have no effect on Trumps poll numbers, but it still needs to be covered. This is information that the public needs to know.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-do-we-hear-more-about-hillarys-emai ls-than-donald_us_577979e2e4b0746f564846b4



[Edited on 7/6/2016 by gondicar]


gondicar - 7/7/2016 at 07:41 PM

From the mouth of a Republican member of the House:

Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) left the meeting worried about Trumps grasp on the basics of the Constitution. At a lunch with reporters afterward, he recalled that the candidate did not seem to know what he was promising to defend.

I wasnt particularly impressed, said Sanford. It was the normal stream of consciousness thats long on hyperbole and short on facts. At one point, somebody asked about Article I powers: What will you do to protect them? I think his response was, I want to protect Article I, Article II, Article XII, going down the list. There is no Article XII.


BoytonBrother - 7/7/2016 at 07:58 PM

Sadly, that's not as important as getting payback on liberals for 8 years of Obama. Because they perceived Obama as the worst possible option, they are intentionally voting in the worst possible option for a liberal - Trump. They'd rather achieve spite and payback rather than elect the best Republican for President of our country.


2112 - 7/8/2016 at 01:00 AM

quote:

Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Charges?

07/03/2016 05:02 pm ET | Updated 2 days ago

I dont know about you, but Im getting tired of 2016 presidential election media coverage. Its been a mess since the beginning, when Donald Trump kicked off his campaign with the statement that Mexicans are rapists, and major news channels and newspapers responded by giving him just what he wanted: more coverage than any other candidate.

For months I maintained the position that if we all stopped clicking on Donald Trump headlines, he would go away. But no one was interested in that strategy, and now its too late to implement it. The media played a major role in Donald Trumps rise to power, and now it seems as though they are rooting for him to maintain it.

Two weeks ago, a woman filed a federal lawsuit against Donald Trump, alleging that he raped her in 1994, when she was 13 years old. Also named as a defendant in the lawsuit is Jeffrey Epstein, a man who has already served a year in prison for soliciting an underage prostitute, and who was recently described by Donald Trump as a terrific guy.

This story was first reported on June 20th by The Real Deal, a publication dedicated to covering New York real estate news. It was picked up by Gothamist, The Daily Beast, Snopes, and a few other websites. I did not learn about the case until a friend of mine shared this Huffington Post blog about it. The case was not covered in Huffington Posts news section, nor in the news section of any major publication.

Meanwhile, I received two New York Times push notifications this week with updates about Hillary Clintons emails.

Has the media decided Donald Trump is just so despicable that it isnt worth covering another atrocity allegedly perpetrated by him, while Hillary Clinton is expected to be a perfect human being, so more coverage of her emails serves the public good? Have they decided Donald Trump is just so immune to negative coverage that reporting this lawsuit is a waste of time, while another story on Hillarys email server is guaranteed to make her even more unpopular?

Or, is giving credence to rape accusations against powerful men still socially unacceptable? (Re: Peyton Manning)

Its difficult for me not to think that sexism has a hand in guiding the medias wacky priority list. I know a lot of people are getting tired of accusations of sexism in this presidential race, but sexism would explain why a female candidate sending emails from a private server faces a thousand times more public scrutiny than a male candidate allegedly raping a child.

To reiterate what has already been determined about Hillarys emails: Federal law did not prohibit public officials from using private email accounts until 2014, after she left office, and none of her emails were considered classified at the time she sent them via a private server. And yet, Hillary is branded a criminal, while Donald Trumpwho has now had three legal claims of sexual assault filed against himremains the successful businessman whose greatest offense is his ego.

You can counter that the claims of sexual assault against Donald Trump are unproven in a court of law, and to that I will counter that Hillary has not been convicted of any crimes either. In this country, the principle of innocent until proven guilty tends to serve the privileged. That principle goes out the window when we discuss accusations against women and people of color.

Donald Trump may be a megalomaniac who has no experience in public office and has shocked the entire world by making it this far in the race, but the absurdity of his candidacy does not mean that he should be vetted less critically than his opponent. He may be a racist and a misogynist from whom we can never expect anything but the worst, but the reality is that hes one election away from being the most powerful person on the planet. If we dismiss his transgressions as just being typical of his character, we may allow him to actually hold that power in his hands.

To all the media gatekeepers out there: If you are frustrated by the fact that criticisms of Donald Trump do not dissuade his supporters in the slightest, I sympathize with you. But your frustration is not an excuse for failing to deliver those criticisms which Trump deserves. Perhaps this latest development would have no effect on Trumps poll numbers, but it still needs to be covered. This is information that the public needs to know.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-do-we-hear-more-about-hillarys-emai ls-than-donald_us_577979e2e4b0746f564846b4

[Edited on 7/6/2016 by gondicar]


That's because raping little girls is not a big deal to the average Trump supporter. Rich people are allowed to do that.


alloak41 - 7/8/2016 at 03:52 AM

quote:

Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Charges?



Trump has been charged with rape? When did this happen?


jkeller - 7/8/2016 at 04:17 AM

quote:
quote:

Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Charges?



Trump has been charged with rape? When did this happen?


Hillary has been charged with a crime concerning her emails? When did that happen?


alloak41 - 7/8/2016 at 04:26 AM

quote:
What more could someone like me ask for? Decorum? Statesmanship? Honesty? Pfffft. Overrated


Overrated? Try non-existent.

The list of people that trust the government gets shorter by the day and they have only
themselves to blame.


gondicar - 7/8/2016 at 11:39 AM

quote:
quote:

Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Charges?



Trump has been charged with rape? When did this happen?

Hypocrite.


alloak41 - 7/8/2016 at 02:11 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:

Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Charges?



Trump has been charged with rape? When did this happen?

Hypocrite.


On what grounds?


LeglizHemp - 7/8/2016 at 02:30 PM

quote:
quote:

Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Charges?



Trump has been charged with rape? When did this happen?


I posted this in February

https://news.vice.com/article/the-salacious-ammo-even-donald-trump-wont-use -in-a-fight-against-hillary-clinton-bill-clinton

and this on 6/22

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/donald-trump-accused-rape-federal-cou rt-lawsuit


Stephen - 7/8/2016 at 03:57 PM

Monica Lewinski?
that'll get dredged up soon enough -- it's not Hillary but close enough -- no mud gets left unslung in political campaigns -- in addition to that, the VP picks will go a long way in determining who wins in Nov -- also, how the 2 conventions go...


alloak41 - 7/8/2016 at 04:28 PM

I'd be pretty surprised if Hillary lost. Especially now that Trump has been charged with rape.


bob1954 - 7/8/2016 at 08:05 PM

quote:
Monica Lewinski?
that'll get dredged up soon enough -- it's not Hillary but close enough -- no mud gets left unslung in political campaigns -- in addition to that, the VP picks will go a long way in determining who wins in Nov -- also, how the 2 conventions go...

I hate to be disagreeable, but I think everything you said is incorrect. Monica Lewinski will not be an issue in the election, even if Trump tried to make it one. That horse died nearly 2 decades ago and didn't even involve Hillary. More effective dirt would come from Whitewater or, for the conspiracy theorists, Vince Foster. The VP picks will have little or no impact on who gets elected. They never do. Likewise how the conventions go will be long forgotten by November unless things completely unravel. Of course they could completely unravel at any time between now and election day regardless of the conventions.


jkeller - 7/8/2016 at 08:11 PM

quote:
I'd be pretty surprised if Hillary lost. Especially now that Trump has been charged with rape.


I guess you still don't understand the difference between being accused of something and being charged with something. Gee, that's shocking.


alloak41 - 7/8/2016 at 08:16 PM

quote:
quote:

Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Charges?



When is the sentencing phase set to begin?


bob1954 - 7/8/2016 at 08:20 PM

quote:
I'd be pretty surprised if Hillary lost. Especially now that Trump has been charged with rape.

I'd be surprised as well, but I felt that way long before the rape accusation. I give no credence at all to that accusation. It is most likely an opportunistic political season sham designed to either influence the election or get a cash payoff. I think Trump has demonstrated enough poor judgement and general creepiness on his own, he doesn't need accusations from others to convince us.


MartinD28 - 7/8/2016 at 10:24 PM

quote:
quote:
I'd be pretty surprised if Hillary lost. Especially now that Trump has been charged with rape.

I'd be surprised as well, but I felt that way long before the rape accusation. I give no credence at all to that accusation. It is most likely an opportunistic political season sham designed to either influence the election or get a cash payoff. I think Trump has demonstrated enough poor judgement and general creepiness on his own, he doesn't need accusations from others to convince us.


There's pages & pages of trash that's come out of Donald's mouth. It's hard to pick a top 10. Even if (and with Trump, we have to emphasize the "if") he was kidding because with him, who knows, this is creepy & perverted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diMp241gAcw


gondicar - 7/8/2016 at 11:04 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:

Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Charges?



When is the sentencing phase set to begin?

Typically there is a sentencing phase after a trial that results in a guilty verdict.


alloak41 - 7/9/2016 at 02:26 AM

quote:

Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Charges?



When is the sentencing phase set to begin?

Typically there is a sentencing phase after a trial that results in a guilty verdict.


Since he's been charged when does the trial start?


jkeller - 7/9/2016 at 02:36 AM

quote:
quote:

Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Charges?



When is the sentencing phase set to begin?

Typically there is a sentencing phase after a trial that results in a guilty verdict.


Since he's been charged when does the trial start?




He hasn't been charged, he has been accused. But you knew that, you just like to troll this place. Or, you are a moron. Or both.


gondicar - 7/9/2016 at 11:57 AM

quote:
quote:

Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Charges?



When is the sentencing phase set to begin?

Typically there is a sentencing phase after a trial that results in a guilty verdict.


Since he's been charged when does the trial start?



Besides you, who here has said he's been charged?


alloak41 - 7/11/2016 at 09:51 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:

Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Charges?



When is the sentencing phase set to begin?

Typically there is a sentencing phase after a trial that results in a guilty verdict.


Since he's been charged when does the trial start?



Besides you, who here has said he's been charged?


It's right there in the Huffington Post headline, posted about six times on this page of the
thread. I guess you didn't see it.




[Edited on 7/11/2016 by alloak41]


jkeller - 7/11/2016 at 10:39 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:

Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Charges?



When is the sentencing phase set to begin?

Typically there is a sentencing phase after a trial that results in a guilty verdict.


Since he's been charged when does the trial start?



Besides you, who here has said he's been charged?


It's right there in the Huffington Post headline, posted about six times on this page of the
thread. I guess you didn't see it.




[Edited on 7/11/2016 by alloak41]


I guess you can't read.

This is the headline:


Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Allegations?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-do-we-hear-more-about-hillarys-emai ls-than-donald_us_577979e2e4b0746f564846b4



do you know the difference between being charged and allegations?


Why don't you try reading things and learning rather than making things up.


BrerRabbit - 7/12/2016 at 12:06 AM

Slam dunk.


alloak41 - 7/12/2016 at 12:23 AM

quote:
Slam dunk.


More like Strike Three. Now all he needs is gondicar's password to go in and change the post from
7/6/16 at 15.43









[Edited on 7/12/2016 by alloak41]


alloak41 - 7/12/2016 at 12:26 AM

quote:

Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Charges?

07/03/2016 05:02 pm ET | Updated 2 days ago

I dont know about you, but Im getting tired of 2016 presidential election media coverage. Its been a mess since the beginning, when Donald Trump kicked off his campaign with the statement that Mexicans are rapists, and major news channels and newspapers responded by giving him just what he wanted: more coverage than any other candidate.

For months I maintained the position that if we all stopped clicking on Donald Trump headlines, he would go away. But no one was interested in that strategy, and now its too late to implement it. The media played a major role in Donald Trumps rise to power, and now it seems as though they are rooting for him to maintain it.

Two weeks ago, a woman filed a federal lawsuit against Donald Trump, alleging that he raped her in 1994, when she was 13 years old. Also named as a defendant in the lawsuit is Jeffrey Epstein, a man who has already served a year in prison for soliciting an underage prostitute, and who was recently described by Donald Trump as a terrific guy.

This story was first reported on June 20th by The Real Deal, a publication dedicated to covering New York real estate news. It was picked up by Gothamist, The Daily Beast, Snopes, and a few other websites. I did not learn about the case until a friend of mine shared this Huffington Post blog about it. The case was not covered in Huffington Posts news section, nor in the news section of any major publication.

Meanwhile, I received two New York Times push notifications this week with updates about Hillary Clintons emails.

Has the media decided Donald Trump is just so despicable that it isnt worth covering another atrocity allegedly perpetrated by him, while Hillary Clinton is expected to be a perfect human being, so more coverage of her emails serves the public good? Have they decided Donald Trump is just so immune to negative coverage that reporting this lawsuit is a waste of time, while another story on Hillarys email server is guaranteed to make her even more unpopular?

Or, is giving credence to rape accusations against powerful men still socially unacceptable? (Re: Peyton Manning)

Its difficult for me not to think that sexism has a hand in guiding the medias wacky priority list. I know a lot of people are getting tired of accusations of sexism in this presidential race, but sexism would explain why a female candidate sending emails from a private server faces a thousand times more public scrutiny than a male candidate allegedly raping a child.

To reiterate what has already been determined about Hillarys emails: Federal law did not prohibit public officials from using private email accounts until 2014, after she left office, and none of her emails were considered classified at the time she sent them via a private server. And yet, Hillary is branded a criminal, while Donald Trumpwho has now had three legal claims of sexual assault filed against himremains the successful businessman whose greatest offense is his ego.

You can counter that the claims of sexual assault against Donald Trump are unproven in a court of law, and to that I will counter that Hillary has not been convicted of any crimes either. In this country, the principle of innocent until proven guilty tends to serve the privileged. That principle goes out the window when we discuss accusations against women and people of color.

Donald Trump may be a megalomaniac who has no experience in public office and has shocked the entire world by making it this far in the race, but the absurdity of his candidacy does not mean that he should be vetted less critically than his opponent. He may be a racist and a misogynist from whom we can never expect anything but the worst, but the reality is that hes one election away from being the most powerful person on the planet. If we dismiss his transgressions as just being typical of his character, we may allow him to actually hold that power in his hands.

To all the media gatekeepers out there: If you are frustrated by the fact that criticisms of Donald Trump do not dissuade his supporters in the slightest, I sympathize with you. But your frustration is not an excuse for failing to deliver those criticisms which Trump deserves. Perhaps this latest development would have no effect on Trumps poll numbers, but it still needs to be covered. This is information that the public needs to know.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-do-we-hear-more-about-hillarys-emai ls-than-donald_us_577979e2e4b0746f564846b4



[Edited on 7/6/2016 by gondicar]




Can't change this headline.....Too late


alloak41 - 7/12/2016 at 12:29 AM

Wait.....it says allegations??

LOL


BrerRabbit - 7/12/2016 at 12:41 AM

alloak is correct. The woman has made allegations and has filed a lawsuit bringing charges against Trump.


LeglizHemp - 7/12/2016 at 12:47 AM

there are no charges....alloak is right....it is a civil suit......this is about money.....just like bill cosby. now i'm not sure if alloak is advocating for cosby....or advocating for too much time has past to care......that is his call


jkeller - 7/12/2016 at 01:22 AM

quote:
quote:
Slam dunk.


More like Strike Three. Now all he needs is gondicar's password to go in and change the post from
7/6/16 at 15.43









[Edited on 7/12/2016 by alloak41]


No, Mr. Literal, you said it is in the Huff Post headline. It is not. It was in gondicar's post maybe, but not on the Huff post.

You are too lazy too click a link. That's on you.


BrerRabbit - 7/12/2016 at 01:42 AM

quote:
alloak is correct. The woman has made allegations and has filed a lawsuit bringing charges against Trump.


quote:
there are no charges....alloak is right....it is a civil suit......


If it is a civil suit, then the woman has brought civil charges of rape against Trump.



gondicar - 7/12/2016 at 02:54 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:

Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Charges?



When is the sentencing phase set to begin?

Typically there is a sentencing phase after a trial that results in a guilty verdict.


Since he's been charged when does the trial start?



Besides you, who here has said he's been charged?


It's right there in the Huffington Post headline, posted about six times on this page of the
thread. I guess you didn't see it.




[Edited on 7/11/2016 by alloak41]


I guess you can't read.

This is the headline:


Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Allegations?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-do-we-hear-more-about-hillarys-emai ls-than-donald_us_577979e2e4b0746f564846b4



do you know the difference between being charged and allegations?


Why don't you try reading things and learning rather than making things up.


They changed the headline. Mystery solved. Jeez, talk about missing the point.


alloak41 - 7/12/2016 at 03:16 AM

quote:
Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Charges?



When is the sentencing phase set to begin?

Typically there is a sentencing phase after a trial that results in a guilty verdict.


Since he's been charged when does the trial start?



Besides you, who here has said he's been charged?


It's right there in the Huffington Post headline, posted about six times on this page of the
thread. I guess you didn't see it.




[Edited on 7/11/2016 by alloak41]


I guess you can't read.

This is the headline:


Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Allegations?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-do-we-hear-more-about-hillarys-emai ls-than-donald_us_577979e2e4b0746f564846b4



do you know the difference between being charged and allegations?


Why don't you try reading things and learning rather than making things up.


They changed the headline. Mystery solved. Jeez, talk about missing the point.


Well, thank you for not changing the headline in the article you posted. I know you wouldn't
do something like that. Can't say the same for everybody, though...


jkeller - 7/12/2016 at 03:27 AM

quote:
quote:
Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Charges?



When is the sentencing phase set to begin?

Typically there is a sentencing phase after a trial that results in a guilty verdict.


Since he's been charged when does the trial start?



Besides you, who here has said he's been charged?


It's right there in the Huffington Post headline, posted about six times on this page of the
thread. I guess you didn't see it.




[Edited on 7/11/2016 by alloak41]


I guess you can't read.

This is the headline:


Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Allegations?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-do-we-hear-more-about-hillarys-emai ls-than-donald_us_577979e2e4b0746f564846b4



do you know the difference between being charged and allegations?


Why don't you try reading things and learning rather than making things up.


They changed the headline. Mystery solved. Jeez, talk about missing the point.


Well, thank you for not changing the headline in the article you posted. I know you wouldn't
do something like that. Can't say the same for everybody, though...


Says the moron who only quotes part of what people post to change the context to suit his own purposes.


gondicar - 7/12/2016 at 03:32 AM

quote:
quote:
Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Charges?



When is the sentencing phase set to begin?

Typically there is a sentencing phase after a trial that results in a guilty verdict.


Since he's been charged when does the trial start?



Besides you, who here has said he's been charged?


It's right there in the Huffington Post headline, posted about six times on this page of the
thread. I guess you didn't see it.




[Edited on 7/11/2016 by alloak41]


I guess you can't read.

This is the headline:


Why Do We Hear More About Hillarys Emails Than Donald Trumps Rape Allegations?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-do-we-hear-more-about-hillarys-emai ls-than-donald_us_577979e2e4b0746f564846b4



do you know the difference between being charged and allegations?


Why don't you try reading things and learning rather than making things up.


They changed the headline. Mystery solved. Jeez, talk about missing the point.


Well, thank you for not changing the headline in the article you posted. I know you wouldn't
do something like that. Can't say the same for everybody, though...

You mean like the way Trump keeps saying stuff then denying he ever said it?

17 times Donald Trump said one thing and then denied it:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/06/17-things-donal d-trump-said-and-then-denied-saying/


alloak41 - 7/12/2016 at 04:13 AM

quote:
They changed the headline. Mystery solved. Jeez, talk about missing the point.


Well, thank you for not changing the headline in the article you posted. I know you wouldn't
do something like that. Can't say the same for everybody, though...

You mean like the way Trump keeps saying stuff then denying he ever said it?

17 times Donald Trump said one thing and then denied it:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/06/17-things-donal d-trump-said-and-then-denied-saying/



Well, ________________ does the same thing. Right?


gondicar - 7/12/2016 at 12:15 PM

quote:
quote:
They changed the headline. Mystery solved. Jeez, talk about missing the point.


Well, thank you for not changing the headline in the article you posted. I know you wouldn't
do something like that. Can't say the same for everybody, though...

You mean like the way Trump keeps saying stuff then denying he ever said it?

17 times Donald Trump said one thing and then denied it:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/06/17-things-donal d-trump-said-and-then-denied-saying/



Well, ________________ does the same thing. Right?

If you say so.


gondicar - 7/13/2016 at 05:39 PM

In an interview with CNN, a former Trump University instructor admits that his main job wasn't to teach real estate, it was to sell real estate seminars. http://cnn.it/29ChF9R


gondicar - 7/14/2016 at 12:02 PM

Dueling Claims on Crime Trend

President Barack Obama said there have been huge drops in the murder rates in cities like New York, Los Angeles and Dallas. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said violent crime has increased in cities across America. Which is it? Well score this one for Obama.

The long-term trend is a decline, not only in the murder rates per population, but the total number of murders in the cities Obama mentioned, and nationwide. The same goes for violent crime. Trump was referring to a recent year-over-year increase in murders in some cities.

For example, the number of murders in Dallas peaked at 500 in 1991, but dropped to nearly half that (231) in 2000, according to data from the FBIs Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics, which is based on voluntary reporting by local police departments. By 2012, the number had dropped further, to 154. Thats not adjusted for population its the sheer numbers of murders and nonnegligent manslaughter reported.

So, the number of murders in Dallas went from 500 in 1991 to 154 in 2012, a decrease of 70 percent. The murder rate, offenses per 100,000 in population, dropped from 48.6 to 12.4 in that same time frame, a 74 percent decrease.

But Trump pointed to a New York Times story on an uptick in 2015 in the number of murders in several cities, including Dallas, as compared with 2014. The Times report showed a 17 percent increase in murders (an increase of 12 murders) in Dallas for January through August 2015 compared with the same time period for 2014.

Indeed, the Dallas Morning News later reported that the total for all of 2015 was a 17 percent increase over the previous year, but noted 2014s number of murders (116) had been a historic low and the murder rate for 2015, according to city officials, was the citys fourth-lowest since Dallas police started counting in 1930.

As criminology and statistics experts told us, we cant discern a trend from a few years of data.

Both politicians made their claims days after the July 7 shooting in Dallas, in which five law enforcement officers were killed by a sniper who told police he was targeting white officers. This came after police in Minnesota and Louisiana had shot and killed two black men earlier that week.

In a July 9 press conference in Poland after a NATO summit, Obama said:

Obama, July 9: Now, when it comes to crime, generally, I think its just important to keep in mind that our crime rate today is substantially lower than it was five years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago. Over the last four or five years, during the course of my presidency, violent crime in the United States is the lowest its been since probably the 1960s, maybe before the early 1960s. Theres been an incredible drop in violent crime.

So that doesnt lessen, I think, peoples understandable fears if they see a video clip of somebody getting killed. But it is important to keep in perspective that in places like New York, or Los Angeles, or Dallas, youve seen huge drops in the murder rates. And thats a testimony to smarter policing, and there are a range of other factors that have contributed to that.


Violent crime has declined over the last five, 10, 20, 30 years, as Obama said, but he went too far in claiming that its the lowest its been since probably the 1960s.

As this graph of violent crime rates for the nation shows, the rate is lower than it has been since 1970. And the rate has been on a steady decline since it peaked at 758.2 in 1991. It was less than half that, 365.5 in 2014. But it was lower in the 1960s than it has been in recent years. (The FBI describes its data as estimated, and as we mentioned it comes from voluntary reports from local law enforcement agencies.)



The murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate nationwide, at 4.5 in 2014, was at its lowest point since at least the early 1960s, when the rate dipped as low as 4.6. (Note the numbers do not include lives lost in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.):



Trump made his claim in a July 11 speech in Virginia Beach:

Trump, July 11: We must discuss, as well, the ongoing catastrophe of crime in our inner cities. Our inner cities are rife with crime. According to the Chicago Tribune, there has already been more than 2,000, 2,000 shooting victims in Chicago alone this year. This epidemic of violence destroys lives, destroys communities, and destroys opportunity for young Americans. Violent crime has increased in cities across America. The New York Times described the startling rise in murders, in our major cities.

Full article: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/dueling-claims-on-crime-trend/


alloak41 - 7/14/2016 at 04:49 PM

You reckon there may be an inverse relationship between gun ownership/the proliferation
of guns in our country and violent crime?

Hmmm


bob1954 - 7/14/2016 at 08:06 PM

quote:
You reckon there may be an inverse relationship between gun ownership/the proliferation of guns in our country and violent crime?

I don't know about that, but the data certainly shows there is a direct correlation between the number of times Trump's lips move and the occurrence of falsehoods.


gondicar - 7/18/2016 at 12:24 PM

Know your candidate...

Trumps Greatest Hits
A compendium of the top false and misleading claims by the Republican presidential candidate
By Lori Robertson
Posted on July 18, 2016

In advance of the Republican National Convention, which begins July 18 in Cleveland, we present a wrap-up of some of the more egregious falsehoods from Donald Trump, who is set to accept his partys nomination for president later this week.

We focused on claims most relevant for the general election and those that Trump has repeated, or that could likely be repeated by him or others this week. For more on each statement, follow the links to our full stories. And all of our articles on Trump can be found here.

Well post an article on claims by Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, next week in advance of the Democratic convention in Philadelphia.

Claims About Clinton

Trump repeatedly has claimed in stump speeches and interviews that Hillary Clinton is going to raise your taxes very substantially. But almost all of the tax increases she has proposed would apply to the top 10 percent of taxpayers, according to analyses by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and pro-business Tax Foundation. [T]he bottom 95 percent of taxpayers would see little or no change in their taxes, the TPC said.

Trump on Clintons Tax Plans, June 28

Trump told a group of evangelical Christian leaders that theres nothing out there about Clintons religion. Thats false. Her religious practice as a Methodist has been well-documented in news reports, by Clinton herself and even in a book. In fact, we know enough about Hillarys faith that I was able to write a 334-page book titled God and Hillary Clinton way back in 2007, author Paul Kengor, executive director of the Center for Vision & Values at the conservative Grove City College, told us in an email.

We Know Plenty About Clintons Religion, June 22

Trump falsely claimed that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was left helpless to die as Hillary Clinton soundly slept in her bed. In an NBC interview, Trump later acknowledged he had no evidence to support his claim, saying, who knows if she was sleeping she might have been sleeping. Two emails from Clinton show that she was awake after she knew of Stevens death from the 2012 attack in Benghazi.

He also wrongly said Clinton would end virtually all immigration enforcement and thus create totally open borders for the United States. She supported the 2013 Senate immigration bill that would have created a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally, but also would have invested in border security. Clintons campaign website says she would focus enforcement resources on detaining and deporting those individuals who pose a violent threat to public safety.

Trumps Attack on Clintons Character, June 22

Trump distorted Clintons gun control plan, claiming she wants to take your guns away and abolish the Second Amendment. She proposes restrictions, including a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons, but doesnt call for a ban on all guns. Clinton also calls for expanded background checks. She has talked repeatedly about the need to respect the constitutional rights of responsible gun owners.

Trump Distorts Clintons Gun Stance, May 10

Trump claimed that Hillary Clinton received a classified intelligence report stating that the Obama administration was actively supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq, the terrorist group that became the Islamic State. Michael Morell, the deputy director and acting director of the CIA from 2010 to 2013, who also served under the Bush administration, called Trumps claim an old conspiracy theory that has no place in our public discourse.

Trumps ISIS Conspiracy Theory, June 16

Foreign Policy and Trade

Trump has repeatedly claimed that he opposed the Iraq War before it began on March 19, 2003, but theres no evidence of that. In a February debate, Trump claimed, I said it loud and clear, Youll destabilize the Middle East,' and in a September 2015 debate he said he could provide 25 different stories to prove his opposition. More recently, in June, Trump told CNN, I think there is evidence. I will see if I can get it. But his campaign has yet to produce one such example, and we couldnt find any. In fact, Trump in September 2002 told radio shock jock Howard Stern, Yeah, I guess so, when asked if he supported going to war with Iraq. It wasnt until a few months after the war began that Trump expressed concern about the war and, at that time, it was about the cost of the war, not the stability of the region.

Donald Trump and the Iraq War, Feb. 19

In a June interview on CNN, Trump wrongly claimed that Iran is taking over the oil in Iraq. Experts told us Iran doesnt control any Iraqi oil fields. Iraqs oil is still the property of the people of Iraq, said Jim Krane, a fellow at the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University and an expert in geopolitical aspects of energy. In fact, Iraq produced and exported a record amount of crude oil last year.

Trump Wrong on Iraqi Oil, June 7

In a late April speech on foreign policy, Trump claimed that now ISIS is making millions and millions of dollars a week selling Libya oil. Claudia Gazzini, a senior analyst for Libya with the International Crisis Group, told us theres no evidence of that. Gazzini said that the Islamic States strategy thus far has largely been to disrupt oil operations in Libya rather than to try and make a profit off of them. (Syria is a different story: In December, the State Department estimated ISIS was making $500 million a year on oil from fields it controlled in Syria.)

Trumps Foreign Policy Speech, April 28

Early in his campaign, Trump got two facts wrong about birthright citizenship a provision of the 14th Amendment that grants citizenship to babies born in the United States even if their parent or parents are living illegally in the country. Trump claimed Mexico doesnt have a policy like that, but indeed it does. Mexico currently has a system that is nearly identical to that of the United States, Emilio Kour, director of the Katz Center for Mexican Studies at the University of Chicago, told us. What we call birthright citizenship, their constitution calls nationality.

Trump also said birthright citizenship is the biggest magnet for illegal immigration. Actually, research shows the biggest magnet is economic opportunity, or jobs. Estimates on the number of immigrants in the U.S. illegally also reflect the economy, with the number rising or falling along with shifting economic conditions.

Trump on Birthright Citizenship, Aug. 25, 2015

Trumps Immigration Plan, Aug. 20, 2015

Trump said he got to know Russian President Vladimir Putin very well because we were both on 60 Minutes, we were stablemates, and we did very well that night. Both men were interviewed for the Sept. 27, 2015, episode, but separately, in different countries Putin in Moscow and Trump in his Manhattan penthouse. Trump also has claimed repeatedly that Putin had called him a genius. Russian language experts told us in May that Putin used a word meaning colorful or bright, depending on the translation. Putin clarified in June that he called Trump flamboyant.

Trump vs. Fiorina: Who Knows Putin Best? Nov. 11, 2015

Putin Did Not Call Trump a Genius' May 6

On trade, Trump has continuously exaggerated the U.S. trade deficit with China, saying its $505 billion. Its not the trade deficit with China was $367 billion for 2015. Trumps figure is close to the $532 billion net trade deficit with all countries. He also has repeatedly, and falsely, said that the U.S. has a negative trade balance with every country with which it does business. The U.S. has positive trade balances with Brazil, Netherlands, Belgium, Singapore, Australia and Argentina, among others.

FactChecking the 11th GOP Debate, March 4

Trump has called the North American Free Trade Agreement Bill Clintons disastrous and totally disastrous NAFTA and said that Clinton signed it and it was his baby. Actually, the agreement was negotiated and signed by President George H.W. Bush. President Clinton later signed the bill enabling NAFTA in 1993, but it took Republican congressional support to get the legislation to his desk.

Trumps Attack on Clintons Character, June 22

Groundhog Friday, July 1

Trump also claimed that NAFTA literally emptied our states of our manufacturing and our jobs, but economic studies say NAFTAs net impact on U.S. jobs has been small. A 2015 report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, for instance, called the net impact relatively modest, noting that it was difficult to gauge the overall impact due to other economic factors.

Trumps Foreign Policy Speech, April 28

Refugees

Trump has made several false claims about Syrian refugees. Nearly 5 million Syrians have been displaced by the civil war that began in March 2011, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The Obama administration plans to accept up to 10,000 this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

Trump suggested in a radio interview in November that the federal government sends Syrian refugees to states with Republican governors, saying, They send them to the Republicans, not to the Democrats, you know, because they know the problems. But the government doesnt place refugees nongovernmental agencies, such as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, do, basing the decision on family ties or employment. The idea that theres some sort of conspiracy here [to relocate based on the politics of a state], thats just not the case, Matthew Soerens, a spokesman for World Relief, an evangelical organization that also resettles the refugees, told us. The stats didnt back-up Trump, either: We found on average, states with Republican governors had just over 41 Syrian refugees each, and states with Democratic governors had just over 36.

Facts about the Syrian Refugees, Nov. 23, 2015

Trump has said that Syrian refugees are entering the U.S. with no documentation and no paperwork. Some may lack paperwork, but the head of the refugee affairs division of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services told Congress that in general they have many, many documents. The State Department says the process to admit a refugee to the U.S. takes 18 to 24 months on average.

Donald Trump on Orlando Shooting, June 14

In a January debate, he also said the Syrian refugees were mostly strong, powerful men, but at the time, most registered with the United Nations were female (50.7 percent) and males under the age of 12 (20 percent). That breakdown largely holds: Figures as of July 4 say women are 49.7 percent and males under 12 are 20.2 percent.

FactChecking the Sixth Republican Debate, Jan. 15

Muslims

It may be his best-known falsehood: In a Nov. 21 speech in Alabama, Trump claimed that he saw on TV thousands and thousands of people in New Jersey cheering the fall of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. A day later, he again said he saw this and emphasized that in New Jersey, you have large Arab populations. But theres no evidence of such a widespread celebration, or related TV footage. In fact, news organizations in New Jersey and New York tried to track down rumors of celebrations at the time and came up empty. Trump then doubled down on the claim, demanding an apology and citing as support a Washington Post story about an alleged celebration that was unattributed and unverified, and not televised.

Trump, Carson on 9/11 Celebrations,' Nov. 24, 2015

In March, Trump wrongly claimed that a Pew Research Center survey found that 27 percent, could be 35 percent of the worlds Muslims would go to war against the U.S. The Pew Research Center told us it had conducted no survey that asks such a question, and experts we consulted didnt know of any such survey, either.

Trumps False Muslim Claim, March 16

Pew Research Center surveys prove another Trump claim wrong: He said that assimilation among Muslim immigrants in the U.S. is pretty close to nonexistent. But Pew concluded in 2011 based on detailed phone interviews with more than 1,000 U.S. Muslims that Muslim Americans appear to be highly assimilated.

Trumps Baseless Assimilation Claim, June 17

After the mass shooting at an Orlando nightclub in June, Trump said many people thought the shooter, Omar Mateen, was a whack job, but they didnt report him. Not true. Mateens co-workers in 2013 reported that he boasted of having terrorist ties, and the FBI opened a 10-month investigation. Also, a week after Trump made his claim, a Muslim friend of Mateen stepped forward to say he had reported Mateen to the FBI in 2014.

Theres also no evidence for Trumps claim about Muslims being complicit in the Dec. 2, 2015, shooting in San Bernardino, California. He said that many people, including neighbors of the shooters, saw bombs all over the floor of the couples apartment, but declined to report it because of concerns about racial profiling. One friend of a neighbor said the neighbor noticed a lot of packages arriving at the house, and that the couple had been doing a lot of work in their garage and the neighbor didnt report it due to racial profiling concerns.

Donald Trump on Orlando Shooting, June 14

Domestic Policy

Trump claimed that his tax plan, unveiled Sept. 28, is revenue neutral, but tax experts say thats not the case not by a long shot. Even when the pro-business Tax Foundation assumed the tax cuts in the plan would promote economic growth, it estimated that federal revenues would be reduced by more than $10 trillion over 10 years.

Is Trumps Tax Plan Revenue Neutral? Oct. 1, 2015

Trump said he heard the unemployment rate was really 42 percent. Its nowhere close to that. The unemployment rate was 4.9 percent when Trump made the claim in February, and it still is today. Trumps figure would include retirees, teenagers, stay-at-home parents and anyone else who doesnt need or want to work. If Trump wanted to include part-time workers wanting full-time work and those who have given up looking for a job but had searched for one in the past year, he could use 9.9 percent for the unemployed and underemployed rate.

Trump Wildly Inflates Unemployment, Feb. 10

Trump claimed the government could save hundreds of billions of dollars in waste through negotiating prescription drug prices. But Medicare, which isnt allowed to negotiate drug prices now, spent well under that an estimated $77 billion total on its prescription drug program in 2015. When Fox News Chris Wallace pointed out during a debate that Medicares drug spending was well under the $300 billion a year savings figure Trump had cited in the past, Trump said he was talking about saving through negotiation throughout the economy. But Trump had claimed several times that he could save $300 billion a year through negotiating drug prices. That would be the total amount spent on retail prescriptions, by the government, insurers and consumers in 2014.

FactChecking the 11th GOP Debate, March 4

In California in June, Trump suggested there is no drought in the state, because it has plenty of water. California is in its fifth year of a severe hot drought, so named by scientists for both the dry and high temperature conditions that are made more likely by global warming. Trump also said water was being shoved out to sea to protect a certain kind of three-inch fish. Officials primarily release water from reservoirs to prevent salt water from contaminating agricultural and urban fresh water supplies.

Trumps Dubious Drought Claims, June 9

Trump was wrong when he called Common Core education through Washington, D.C. and said the education standards had been taken over by the federal government. The standards for what children in grades K-12 should know in math and English were developed by state officials, and curriculum is still controlled at the state and local school level. As for the federal government, federal money has been used to develop standardized tests for Common Core, and the Obama administration gave states that voluntarily adopted the standards advantages in competing for education grants. Thats far from a federal takeover.

FactChecking the 12th GOP Debate, March 11

In late November, Trump retweeted a bogus graphic purporting to show homicide data delineated by race. He told Fox News the graphic came from sources that are very credible, but nearly every number in the graphic is wrong. Among the gross inaccuracies: The graphic said 81 percent of white murder victims were killed by blacks; the real figure is 14.8 percent, according to the FBIs Uniform Crime Reports data for 2014.

Trump Retweets Bogus Crime Graphic, Nov. 23

Trump on Trump

Trump claimed that he predicted Osama bin Laden in his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, saying I said in that book that we better be careful with this guy named Osama bin Laden and that the U.S. better take him out. There are no such passages in the book. The lone mention of bin Laden in the book refers to him escaping a U.S. jetfighter attack in August 1998, ordered by President Clinton in response to bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that month.

Trumps bin Laden Prediction' Dec. 2, 2015

Unlike many other 2016 presidential candidates, Trump has not released his tax returns and claimed theres nothing to learn from them. But experts told us theres plenty of information to glean from a candidates tax returns, including sources of income, effective tax rates, charitable giving habits, conflicts of interest and more. Every major party nominee since the late 1970s has released tax returns before Election Day.

Trumps Tax Returns, May 12

The Better Business Bureau rating for Trump University was a D- in 2010, a fact the BBB confirmed in a statement. That was the last year the school accepted new students. But Trump repeatedly insisted it got an A rating, even posting a video to YouTube in which he holds up a sheet of paper with an A rating. That meaningless rating was for The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative, which was launched in 2010 when Trump University had to change its name since it wasnt a licensed university. The BBB reviews are based on the last three years of complaints and information, so the A rating would have been from 2014, years after the school stopped taking new students.

Trump Universitys D- Rating, March 8

Trump said he started his business career with only $1 million from his father. That undervalues his fathers contributions, which included considerable financial and political clout, Gwenda Blair, author of The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders, told us. Fred Trump co-guaranteed a construction loan and lent millions on another occasion, Blair said.

FactChecking the 11th GOP Debate, March 4

Trump claimed Ford changed its plans to build new manufacturing facilities in Mexico because of his criticism of the deal on the campaign trail, which included the threat of putting a high import tax on the company. But Ford said it hadnt changed its plans at all. One of Trumps tweets pointed to a story on a separate deal, credited to Ohio Gov. John Kasich and dating to 2011, to move some production from Mexico to Ohio.

Trumps Bogus Boast on Ford, Oct. 26, 2015

By Lori Robertson, with the staff of FactCheck.org

Editors Note: Lori Robertson will be in Cleveland covering the Republican convention for FactCheck.org from July 18 to July 21.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/trumps-greatest-hits/


2112 - 7/18/2016 at 04:50 PM

I find it strange that the same people who go on and on about Obama and/or Hillary blaming a video for Benghazi don't have any problems at all with Trump's constant lies. Lying is nothing new to politicians, but Trump takes it to a whole new level. There has never been anything like him before. His lying is like an art and his supporters seem to ignore it all.


alloak41 - 7/18/2016 at 09:40 PM

quote:
I find it strange that the same people who go on and on about Obama and/or Hillary blaming a video for Benghazi don't have any problems at all with Trump's constant lies. Lying is nothing new to politicians, but Trump takes it to a whole new level. There has never been anything like him before. His lying is like an art and his supporters seem to ignore it all.


Trump lies. Hillary lies. It's a push, and it's debatable whether Trump "takes it to a new level."
Highly debatable. He's probably fact checked more but that's another story.


jkeller - 7/18/2016 at 10:34 PM

quote:
quote:
I find it strange that the same people who go on and on about Obama and/or Hillary blaming a video for Benghazi don't have any problems at all with Trump's constant lies. Lying is nothing new to politicians, but Trump takes it to a whole new level. There has never been anything like him before. His lying is like an art and his supporters seem to ignore it all.


Trump lies. Hillary lies. It's a push, and it's debatable whether Trump "takes it to a new level."
Highly debatable. He's probably fact checked more but that's another story.


And you lie as well. (Cox, Strasburg). You are probably not the one to comment on this. Just sayin'.


LeglizHemp - 7/18/2016 at 10:58 PM

said this evening on MSNBC......Far Out

REP. STEVE KING (R-IA): This whole white people business though does get a little tired, Charlie. I mean, I would ask you to go back through history and figure out where are these contributions that have been made by these other categories of people that you are talking about, where did any other subgroup of people contribute more to civilization?

CHRIS HAYES (HOST): Than white people?

KING: Than Western civilization itself that's rooted in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and the United States of America, and every place where the footprint of Christianity settled the world. That's all of Western civilization.


LeglizHemp - 7/18/2016 at 11:19 PM

LOL my friend in Australia asked me why Scott Baio and the guy from Duck Dynasty were speaking at the convention. I told her Clint Eastwood and Ted Nugent were busy.

ROFL......she just asked if the Empty Chair was busy too.

[Edited on 7/18/2016 by LeglizHemp]


gondicar - 7/19/2016 at 02:05 AM

quote:
said this evening on MSNBC......Far Out

REP. STEVE KING (R-IA): This whole white people business though does get a little tired, Charlie. I mean, I would ask you to go back through history and figure out where are these contributions that have been made by these other categories of people that you are talking about, where did any other subgroup of people contribute more to civilization?

CHRIS HAYES (HOST): Than white people?

KING: Than Western civilization itself that's rooted in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and the United States of America, and every place where the footprint of Christianity settled the world. That's all of Western civilization.

Remember back in Jan and Feb when Iowa was the center of the political universe? Same place the elected this guy to the US Senate. Just sayin.


gondicar - 7/19/2016 at 02:08 AM

quote:
LOL my friend in Australia asked me why Scott Baio and the guy from Duck Dynasty were speaking at the convention. I told her Clint Eastwood and Ted Nugent were busy.

ROFL......she just asked if the Empty Chair was busy too.

[Edited on 7/18/2016 by LeglizHemp]

It's a fair question. At least the Dems will get a few A-listers.


gondicar - 7/19/2016 at 02:42 AM

Tony Schwartz, the ghost-writer for Donald Trumps The Art of the Deal, tells Jane Mayer of the New Yorker (link below): I put lipstick on a pig. I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is. I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.

If he were writing The Art of the Deal today, Schwartz said, it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, The Sociopath.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tell s-all


gondicar - 7/19/2016 at 04:19 PM

For the third time, Donald Trump, U.S. is not 'highest taxed nation in the world'
By Louis Jacobson, Linda Qiu on Sunday, May 8th, 2016 at 5:43 p.m.

Donald Trump released a tax plan in September that would give huge tax cuts to the top 0.1 percent and bloat the deficit by at least $10 trillion over the next decade. But after he became the GOPs last man standing and presumptive nominee, Trump said this week hes considering raising taxes on the rich.

"Should we assume that most of your plans, then, we shouldnt take you at your words, as sort of that theyre floors?" Meet the Press host Chuck Todd asked Trump.

"It is called life, Chuck. Its not my word, of course. I put in a proposal. You know what they are? They're really proposals. People can say its a tax plan. Its really a tax proposal. Because after I put it in, and I think you know the Senate and Congress, you know as much as anybody, they start working with you and they start fighting," Trump responded. "But Im not under the illusion that that its going to pass. Theyre going to come to me. Theyre going to want to raise it for the rich more than anybody else."

He then explained why, despite that, hes still sticking to his guns and giving "a massive" tax cut to businesses: "Were the highest taxed nation in the world. Our businesses pay more taxes than any businesses in the world. Thats why companies are leaving."

This is a version of one of Trumps oft-repeated talking points, and its inaccurate.

When we looked at this claim in the past, we compared the United States to the 33 other industrialized nations in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Data from 2014, the most recent year available, shows that the United States wasnt the most highly taxed by the typical metrics and actually places near the bottom or around the middle of the pack.

Trump specified this time that he was talking about business taxes, but the essential data doesnt back him there, either.

Trump would have been more accurate if he had been more specific. The United States does have one of the highest top marginal corporate tax rates in the world. However, companies pay less in practice because they can take deductions and exclusions. When we look at the actual tax burden on U.S. companies, its far from highest in the world.

Heres a chart breaking it down:



The World Banks data for 2012 the last year for which it has complete figures also placed the United States near the bottom in tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. Nations with lower percentages were two OECD members (Japan and Spain), a couple of oil-rich countries (Oman and Kuwait) and few impoverished states (like Afghanistan and the Central African Republic).

We also looked at a 2016 report by the World Bank and PricewaterhouseCoopers that assessed the total tax burden for a case study company in different places around the world. The total tax rate which includes not only income taxes but also labor taxes, property taxes, profit taxes, etc. is expressed as a percentage over the total profit.

By this metric, the company would have a total tax rate of 43.9 percent in the United States, placing it at No. 64 out of 189 countries.

Thats lower than the rates the company would have paid in the two countries Trump says the United States loses to, China (67.8 percent) and Mexico (51.7 percent). Moreover, its nowhere near the top.

Our ruling

Trump said, "We're the highest taxed nation in the world."

By all metrics we looked at, the United States is far from the most taxed nation overall and for businesses.

We rate Trumps claim False.



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/08/donald-trump /donald-trump-us-not-highest-taxed-nation-in-world/


gondicar - 7/20/2016 at 09:32 PM

Donald Trump said he recommended that the Republican National Convention be held in Ohio. But Trump announced his presidential run a year after Cleveland had been selected for the site of the convention.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/trump-recommended-ohio-for-convention/


LeglizHemp - 7/21/2016 at 06:20 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/20/did-the-trump-cam paign-violate-federal-law-by-using-a-trump-organization-speechwriter/?posts hare=521469036580007&tid=ss_tw

Did the Trump campaign violate federal law by using a Trump Organization speechwriter?

By Philip Bump July 20

"My name is Meredith McIver," it began, "and I'm an in-house staff writer at the Trump Organization." McIver explains how she was working with Melania on the speech when the candidate's wife read out some passages from Michelle Obama's 2008 convention speech. Those passages were then accidentally included in the draft Trump used, for which McIver, later in the note, apologizes. Done and done; the truth has come out.

But there's another problem. Notice the letterhead of the statement: The Trump Organization, which is to say Donald Trump's personal business. And notice how McIver describes herself: As an employee of the Trump Organization, not the campaign.

If Trump used corporate resources to write a political speech, that could be illegal.

"On the face of it, this looks like a corporate violation," explained Lawrence Noble, general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center. And that is "a violation of federal law. It can result in civil penalties to the corporation and the campaign." If the campaign used corporate resources "willingly and knowingly," the offense is a criminal one.

Noble notes, however, that the campaign has regularly used corporate staff for the campaign -- but have properly accounted for that use by paying the staff from the campaign. Trump's campaign can use Trump Organization staffers if those staffers are paid for that work by the campaign.

"It's very hard to tell exactly what's going on," Noble said, "but it's possible that what they're doing is paying in advance for the use of staff." Campaign filings show that the Trump campaign has done this frequently; as long as the staff are paid for their campaign work -- by the campaign, and in advance -- it's allowed. The campaign also has to compensate the corporation for any resources used: A computer, a printer, a desk. If Trump For President anticipated using McIver and then wrote a check to Trump Org for her time and electricity and so on, that angle is covered. (The way that campaign finance reports are filed, though, it's hard to know if this is what happened, even after the fact.)

That the letter is on Trump Organization letterhead is also problem by itself. "The Trump Organization should not be providing anything to the campaign that it's not getting paid for," Noble said -- including letterhead. It also reinforces the idea that McIver wasn't working for the campaign at all, as legally required. The letter contains no suggestion that McIver was a campaign employee at any point. Noble points out that she offered to resign her position, but which position? For it to have been legal, she was working for the campaign -- but it seems clear that she offered to resign from her theoretically unrelated Trump Organization job. What we would have expected is a letter on campaign letterhead talking about how McIver as a campaign employee accidentally included parts of Obama's speech. None of that is the case.


gondicar - 7/21/2016 at 06:24 PM

quote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/20/did-the-tru mp-campaign-violate-federal-law-by-using-a-trump-organization-speechwriter/ ?postshare=521469036580007&tid=ss_tw

Did the Trump campaign violate federal law by using a Trump Organization speechwriter?

By Philip Bump July 20

"My name is Meredith McIver," it began, "and I'm an in-house staff writer at the Trump Organization." McIver explains how she was working with Melania on the speech when the candidate's wife read out some passages from Michelle Obama's 2008 convention speech. Those passages were then accidentally included in the draft Trump used, for which McIver, later in the note, apologizes. Done and done; the truth has come out.

But there's another problem. Notice the letterhead of the statement: The Trump Organization, which is to say Donald Trump's personal business. And notice how McIver describes herself: As an employee of the Trump Organization, not the campaign.

If Trump used corporate resources to write a political speech, that could be illegal.

"On the face of it, this looks like a corporate violation," explained Lawrence Noble, general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center. And that is "a violation of federal law. It can result in civil penalties to the corporation and the campaign." If the campaign used corporate resources "willingly and knowingly," the offense is a criminal one.

Noble notes, however, that the campaign has regularly used corporate staff for the campaign -- but have properly accounted for that use by paying the staff from the campaign. Trump's campaign can use Trump Organization staffers if those staffers are paid for that work by the campaign.

"It's very hard to tell exactly what's going on," Noble said, "but it's possible that what they're doing is paying in advance for the use of staff." Campaign filings show that the Trump campaign has done this frequently; as long as the staff are paid for their campaign work -- by the campaign, and in advance -- it's allowed. The campaign also has to compensate the corporation for any resources used: A computer, a printer, a desk. If Trump For President anticipated using McIver and then wrote a check to Trump Org for her time and electricity and so on, that angle is covered. (The way that campaign finance reports are filed, though, it's hard to know if this is what happened, even after the fact.)

That the letter is on Trump Organization letterhead is also problem by itself. "The Trump Organization should not be providing anything to the campaign that it's not getting paid for," Noble said -- including letterhead. It also reinforces the idea that McIver wasn't working for the campaign at all, as legally required. The letter contains no suggestion that McIver was a campaign employee at any point. Noble points out that she offered to resign her position, but which position? For it to have been legal, she was working for the campaign -- but it seems clear that she offered to resign from her theoretically unrelated Trump Organization job. What we would have expected is a letter on campaign letterhead talking about how McIver as a campaign employee accidentally included parts of Obama's speech. None of that is the case.


I saw Trump's campaign manager on the Today Show this morning say that he had no idea who McIver is until after the fact and that he had no idea she was involved in writing the speech, and his previous denials about plagiarizing we based on talking to the campaign speech writers. So unless he changes his story again, I'm guessing that the campaign hasn't paid her anything.


gondicar - 7/21/2016 at 07:48 PM

For some reason the Trump folks seem scared of any American voters that actually have a conscience...


Trump's campaign manager says Ted Cruz 'made a mistake' by not endorsing the GOP nominee

Donald Trump's campaign chairman Thursday called Sen. Ted Cruz's refusal to endorse the Republican presidential nominee a "mistake," after Cruz's speech to the party's convention tore open old wounds in what was intended to be a unifying week for the GOP.

Cruz used very bad judgment, top Trump aide Paul Manafort told NBCs Today. ... He made a mistake. I think he was not respectful of the invitation by the convention to come and speak.

Manafort called the Texas lawmakers move a failure to adhere to the responsibilities of the position he accepted as a GOP leader and speaker at the event.

Cruz, who was a Trump rival during the primary season, instead encouraged voters to come out in November and vote your conscience," which was the rallying cry of the anti-Trump movement.

If you love our country and if you love your children as much as I know you do, stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, Cruz said. Vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.

Full article: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-republican-conventi on-2016-trump-manafort-cruz-made-a-mistake-not-1469104746-htmlstory.html


gondicar - 7/21/2016 at 08:35 PM

This should not happen in the land of the free. I do believe it is evidence of the Trumping of America and it is definitely not ok...


Mohamed Ahmed Radwan Kicked Off Plane After Flight Attendant Said 'You Will Be Watched'

The easiest way to get kicked off an airplane? Be Muslim.

Mohamed Ahmed Radwan was taking an American Airlines flight from Charlotte, North Carolina, to Detroit, Michigan, in December when he was ejected from the plane.

On Wednesday, with the assistance of the Council of American Islamic Relations, Radwan filed a complaint against the airline for "discriminatory conduct" to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

The complaint, dated July 20, said a flight attendant told Radwan she will be watching him over the public intercom system.

"As Mr. Radwan took his designated seat, a flight attendant loudly announced: "Mohamed Ahmed, Seat 25-A: I will be watching you," the complaint said. "After approximately one minute, the flight attendant again repeated the announcement, this time stating: 'Mohamed Ahmed, that is a very long name, Seat 25-A: I will be watching you.' For the third time, in a louder and more aggressive tone, she again announced, '25-A: you will be watched.'"

After respectfully inquiring about the several announcements the flight attendant made about him, Radwan was told that he was being "too sensitive" and was asked to come to the front of the plane. From there, "Camille" a flight attendant and a male American Airlines employee discussed the incident with Radwan.

Camille then informed Radwan that he had to be removed from the flight. The reason for his removal? The flight attendant was "uncomfortable" with him on the plane.

"It is apparent that American Airlines removed Mr. Radwan from his flight not out of legitimate and credible safety concern or need, but because of his identifiably Arabic and Muslim name," the complaint added.

This is happening all too often.

The complaint pointed out multiple instances in 2016 where flight attendants or airline companies removed passengers this year being Arab or Muslim. For example, on June 16, a bearded man was kicked off of a plane when a passenger said he looked "Arabic and scary."

After requesting another booster seat on United Airlines flight at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, a Muslim mother and her three children were removed from the plane on March 26. A few weeks later, Southwest Airlines removed a university student for speaking Arabic. And on Jan. 18, four men were ejected from an American Airlines flight because the cabin crew including the captain did not feel "comfortable" with their presence on the plane. Three of them were Muslim and one of them is Sikh.

When airline companies kick out passengers for speaking Arabic or "looking Muslim," they're criminalizing the Muslim identity. How many more incidents do we need to have before we do something about it?

https://mic.com/articles/149420/mohamed-ahmed-radwan-kicked-off-plane-after -flight-attendant-said-you-will-be-watched#.SNWBI9cQr


2112 - 7/21/2016 at 08:40 PM

quote:
For some reason the Trump folks seem scared of any American voters that actually have a conscience...


Trump's campaign manager says Ted Cruz 'made a mistake' by not endorsing the GOP nominee

Donald Trump's campaign chairman Thursday called Sen. Ted Cruz's refusal to endorse the Republican presidential nominee a "mistake," after Cruz's speech to the party's convention tore open old wounds in what was intended to be a unifying week for the GOP.

Cruz used very bad judgment, top Trump aide Paul Manafort told NBCs Today. ... He made a mistake. I think he was not respectful of the invitation by the convention to come and speak.

Manafort called the Texas lawmakers move a failure to adhere to the responsibilities of the position he accepted as a GOP leader and speaker at the event.

Cruz, who was a Trump rival during the primary season, instead encouraged voters to come out in November and vote your conscience," which was the rallying cry of the anti-Trump movement.

If you love our country and if you love your children as much as I know you do, stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, Cruz said. Vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.

Full article: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-republican-conventi on-2016-trump-manafort-cruz-made-a-mistake-not-1469104746-htmlstory.html


You know, if Cruz, Romney, the Bushs, and all of the other top GOP members who refuse to back Trump actually came out in a high profile event and backed Johnson, I think he might have a chance.


gondicar - 7/24/2016 at 12:48 AM

Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy

DONALD J. TRUMP, until now a Republican problem, this week became a challenge the nation must confront and overcome. The real estate tycoon is uniquely unqualified to serve as president, in experience and temperament. He is mounting a campaign of snarl and sneer, not substance. To the extent he has views, they are wrong in their diagnosis of Americas problems and dangerous in their proposed solutions. Mr. Trumps politics of denigration and division could strain the bonds that have held a diverse nation together. His contempt for constitutional norms might reveal the nations two-century-old experiment in checks and balances to be more fragile than we knew.

Full article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-is-a-unique-threat-to- american-democracy/2016/07/22/a6d823cc-4f4f-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.ht ml


Muleman1994 - 7/24/2016 at 05:00 PM

Obamas half-brother (brotha from another motha) says hell be voting for Donald Trump

http://nypost.com/2016/07/24/why-obamas-half-brother-says-hell-be-voting-fo r-donald-trump/


jkeller - 7/24/2016 at 05:13 PM

Saw an interesting observation today. Can you imagine the reaction by the Republicans if Obama (or any Democratic nominee) appeared on stage with his 5 children from 3 different wives?


bob1954 - 7/24/2016 at 06:00 PM

quote:
Saw an interesting observation today. Can you imagine the reaction by the Republicans if Obama (or any Democratic nominee) appeared on stage with his 5 children from 3 different wives?

True. But on the flip side, unlike Bill Clinton at least he was married to their mothers.


gondicar - 7/24/2016 at 07:42 PM

quote:
Saw an interesting observation today. Can you imagine the reaction by the Republicans if Obama (or any Democratic nominee) appeared on stage with his 5 children from 3 different wives?

The family values party. Lol.


2112 - 7/24/2016 at 07:57 PM

quote:
Obamas half-brother (brotha from another motha) says hell be voting for Donald Trump

http://nypost.com/2016/07/24/why-obamas-half-brother-says-hell-be-voting-fo r-donald-trump/




Yawn, and in other news Ronald Reagan's conservative son Michael Reagan said he will not vote for Trump and neither would his father. He thinks it would be the first time that his father wouldn't vote for a Republican.

http://rare.us/story/ronald-reagans-conservative-son-weighs-in-on-whether-h is-dad-would-support-donald-trump/


MartinD28 - 7/24/2016 at 07:59 PM

quote:
quote:
Saw an interesting observation today. Can you imagine the reaction by the Republicans if Obama (or any Democratic nominee) appeared on stage with his 5 children from 3 different wives?

The family values party. Lol.


David Duke running for the seat vacated by David Vitter (DC family values GOP Senator of prostitute fame). Both are outstanding choices for the folks from Louisiana.


Muleman1994 - 7/24/2016 at 09:39 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Saw an interesting observation today. Can you imagine the reaction by the Republicans if Obama (or any Democratic nominee) appeared on stage with his 5 children from 3 different wives?

The family values party. Lol.


David Duke running for the seat vacated by David Vitter (DC family values GOP Senator of prostitute fame). Both are outstanding choices for the folks from Louisiana.

_________________________________________________________________________

Yet Bill Clinton sexually assaulted and raped women and that is all good with the left.

You think Monica will escort Bill Clinton on stage at The DNC?


jkeller - 7/24/2016 at 09:45 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Saw an interesting observation today. Can you imagine the reaction by the Republicans if Obama (or any Democratic nominee) appeared on stage with his 5 children from 3 different wives?

The family values party. Lol.


David Duke running for the seat vacated by David Vitter (DC family values GOP Senator of prostitute fame). Both are outstanding choices for the folks from Louisiana.

_________________________________________________________________________

Yet Bill Clinton sexually assaulted and raped women and that is all good with the left.

You think Monica will escort Bill Clinton on stage at The DNC?



What part of the Republican double standard don't you get?


2112 - 7/24/2016 at 11:30 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Saw an interesting observation today. Can you imagine the reaction by the Republicans if Obama (or any Democratic nominee) appeared on stage with his 5 children from 3 different wives?

The family values party. Lol.


David Duke running for the seat vacated by David Vitter (DC family values GOP Senator of prostitute fame). Both are outstanding choices for the folks from Louisiana.

_________________________________________________________________________

Yet Bill Clinton sexually assaulted and raped women and that is all good with the left.

You think Monica will escort Bill Clinton on stage at The DNC?




Yet you seem to be ok with the rape aligations against Trump. I'm definitely not voting for anybody who rapes a 13 year old.


Muleman1994 - 7/24/2016 at 11:37 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Saw an interesting observation today. Can you imagine the reaction by the Republicans if Obama (or any Democratic nominee) appeared on stage with his 5 children from 3 different wives?

The family values party. Lol.


David Duke running for the seat vacated by David Vitter (DC family values GOP Senator of prostitute fame). Both are outstanding choices for the folks from Louisiana.

_________________________________________________________________________

Yet Bill Clinton sexually assaulted and raped women and that is all good with the left.

You think Monica will escort Bill Clinton on stage at The DNC?




Yet you seem to be ok with the rape aligations against Trump. I'm definitely not voting for anybody who rapes a 13 year old.

_______________________________________________________________________

Why should I be outraged over another left-wing's lie?
It didn't happen but hey, when the liberals can float a lie and their corrupt media cronies roll with whatever they are told go for it.

Bill Clinton actually did sexually assaulted and raped women and that seems fine with the liberals.


jkeller - 7/24/2016 at 11:45 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Saw an interesting observation today. Can you imagine the reaction by the Republicans if Obama (or any Democratic nominee) appeared on stage with his 5 children from 3 different wives?

The family values party. Lol.


David Duke running for the seat vacated by David Vitter (DC family values GOP Senator of prostitute fame). Both are outstanding choices for the folks from Louisiana.

_________________________________________________________________________

Yet Bill Clinton sexually assaulted and raped women and that is all good with the left.

You think Monica will escort Bill Clinton on stage at The DNC?




Yet you seem to be ok with the rape aligations against Trump. I'm definitely not voting for anybody who rapes a 13 year old.

_______________________________________________________________________

Why should I be outraged over another left-wing's lie?
It didn't happen but hey, when the liberals can float a lie and their corrupt media cronies roll with whatever they are told go for it.

Bill Clinton actually did sexually assaulted and raped women and that seems fine with the liberals.




What part of the Republican double standard don't you get?


2112 - 7/25/2016 at 02:00 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Saw an interesting observation today. Can you imagine the reaction by the Republicans if Obama (or any Democratic nominee) appeared on stage with his 5 children from 3 different wives?

The family values party. Lol.


David Duke running for the seat vacated by David Vitter (DC family values GOP Senator of prostitute fame). Both are outstanding choices for the folks from Louisiana.

_________________________________________________________________________

Yet Bill Clinton sexually assaulted and raped women and that is all good with the left.

You think Monica will escort Bill Clinton on stage at The DNC?




Yet you seem to be ok with the rape aligations against Trump. I'm definitely not voting for anybody who rapes a 13 year old.

_______________________________________________________________________

Why should I be outraged over another left-wing's lie?
It didn't happen but hey, when the liberals can float a lie and their corrupt media cronies roll with whatever they are told go for it.

Bill Clinton actually did sexually assaulted and raped women and that seems fine with the liberals.




What part of the Republican double standard don't you get?


There have been three aligations, and all seem credible. Seemed like everyone was slow to believe the aligations against Bill Cosby too.

http://reverbpress.com/sexes/why-does-the-media-ignore-sexual-assault-claim s-vs-trump/


gondicar - 7/25/2016 at 05:14 PM

Is Donald Trump a Racist?
Clues from decades of words and actions
Nicholas Kristof JULY 23, 2016

HAS the party of Lincoln just nominated a racist to be president? We shouldnt toss around such accusations lightly, so Ive looked back over more than 40 years of Donald Trumps career to see what the record says.

One early red flag arose in 1973, when President Richard Nixons Justice Department not exactly the radicals of the day sued Trump and his father, Fred Trump, for systematically discriminating against blacks in housing rentals.

Ive waded through 1,021 pages of documents from that legal battle, and they are devastating. Donald Trump was then president of the family real estate firm, and the government amassed overwhelming evidence that the company had a policy of discriminating against blacks, including those serving in the military.

To prove the discrimination, blacks were repeatedly dispatched as testers to Trump apartment buildings to inquire about vacancies, and white testers were sent soon after. Repeatedly, the black person was told that nothing was available, while the white tester was shown apartments for immediate rental.

A former building superintendent working for the Trumps explained that he was told to code any application by a black person with the letter C, for colored, apparently so the office would know to reject it. A Trump rental agent said the Trumps wanted to rent only to Jews and executives, and discouraged renting to blacks.

Donald Trump furiously fought the civil rights suit in the courts and the media, but the Trumps eventually settled on terms that were widely regarded as a victory for the government. Three years later, the government sued the Trumps again, for continuing to discriminate.

In fairness, those suits date from long ago, and the discriminatory policies were probably put in place not by Donald Trump but by his father. Fred Trump appears to have been arrested at a Ku Klux Klan rally in 1927; Woody Guthrie, who lived in a Trump property in the 1950s, lambasted Fred Trump in recently discovered papers for stirring racial hatred.

Yet even if Donald Trump inherited his firms discriminatory policies, he allied himself decisively in the 1970s housing battle against the civil rights movement.

Another revealing moment came in 1989, when New York City was convulsed by the Central Park jogger case, a rape and beating of a young white woman. Five black and Latino teenagers were arrested.

Trump stepped in, denounced Mayor Ed Kochs call for peace and bought full-page newspaper ads calling for the death penalty. The five teenagers spent years in prison before being exonerated. In retrospect, they suffered a modern version of a lynching, and Trump played a part in whipping up the crowds.

As Trump moved into casinos, discrimination followed. In the 1980s, according to a former Trump casino worker, Kip Brown, who was quoted by The New Yorker: When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor. They put us all in the back.

In 1991, a book by John ODonnell, who had been president of the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump as criticizing a black accountant and saying: Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. I think that the guy is lazy. And its probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. Its not anything they can control. ODonnell wrote that for months afterward, Trump pressed him to fire the black accountant, until the man resigned of his own accord.

Trump eventually denied making those comments. But in 1997 in a Playboy interview, he conceded the stuff ODonnell wrote about me is probably true.

The recent record may be more familiar: Trumps suggestions that President Obama was born in Kenya; his insinuations that Obama was admitted to Ivy League schools only because of affirmative action; his denunciations of Mexican immigrants as, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists; his calls for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States; his dismissal of an American-born judge of Mexican ancestry as a Mexican who cannot fairly hear his case; his reluctance to distance himself from the Ku Klux Klan in a television interview; his retweet of a graphic suggesting that 81 percent of white murder victims are killed by blacks (the actual figure is about 15 percent); and so on.

Trump has also retweeted messages from white supremacists or Nazi sympathizers, including two from an account called @WhiteGenocideTM with a photo of the American Nazi Partys founder.

Trump repeatedly and vehemently denies any racism, and he has deleted some offensive tweets. The Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi racist website that has endorsed Trump, sees that as going full-wink-wink-wink.

(Update: After this column was published, the Trump campaign emailed me the following statement: Donald Trump has a lifetime record of inclusion and has publicly rebuked groups who seek to discriminate against others on numerous occasions. To suggest otherwise is a complete fabrication of the truth.)

My view is that racist can be a loaded word, a conversation stopper more than a clarifier, and that we should be careful not to use it simply as an epithet. Moreover, Muslims and Latinos can be of any race, so some of those statements technically reflect not so much racism as bigotry. Its also true that with any single statement, it is possible that Trump misspoke or was misconstrued.

And yet.

Here we have a man who for more than four decades has been repeatedly associated with racial discrimination or bigoted comments about minorities, some of them made on television for all to see. While any one episode may be ambiguous, what emerges over more than four decades is a narrative arc, a consistent pattern and I dont see what else to call it but racism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/opinion/sunday/is-donald-trump-a-racist.h tml


Muleman1994 - 7/25/2016 at 05:29 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Saw an interesting observation today. Can you imagine the reaction by the Republicans if Obama (or any Democratic nominee) appeared on stage with his 5 children from 3 different wives?

The family values party. Lol.


David Duke running for the seat vacated by David Vitter (DC family values GOP Senator of prostitute fame). Both are outstanding choices for the folks from Louisiana.

_________________________________________________________________________

Yet Bill Clinton sexually assaulted and raped women and that is all good with the left.

You think Monica will escort Bill Clinton on stage at The DNC?




Yet you seem to be ok with the rape aligations against Trump. I'm definitely not voting for anybody who rapes a 13 year old.

_______________________________________________________________________

Why should I be outraged over another left-wing's lie?
It didn't happen but hey, when the liberals can float a lie and their corrupt media cronies roll with whatever they are told go for it.

Bill Clinton actually did sexually assaulted and raped women and that seems fine with the liberals.




What part of the Republican double standard don't you get?


There have been three aligations, and all seem credible. Seemed like everyone was slow to believe the aligations against Bill Cosby too.

http://reverbpress.com/sexes/why-does-the-media-ignore-sexual-assault-claim s-vs-trump/

_______________________________________________________________________

No proof, no creditable accusers... nothing.

Bill Clinton sexually assaulted and raped women and it has been proven. He actually paid a settlement to one of the women he raped.

Now I know raping women is all good with the liberals but not with anyone with a conscience.


jkeller - 7/25/2016 at 06:11 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Saw an interesting observation today. Can you imagine the reaction by the Republicans if Obama (or any Democratic nominee) appeared on stage with his 5 children from 3 different wives?

The family values party. Lol.


David Duke running for the seat vacated by David Vitter (DC family values GOP Senator of prostitute fame). Both are outstanding choices for the folks from Louisiana.

_________________________________________________________________________

Yet Bill Clinton sexually assaulted and raped women and that is all good with the left.

You think Monica will escort Bill Clinton on stage at The DNC?




Yet you seem to be ok with the rape aligations against Trump. I'm definitely not voting for anybody who rapes a 13 year old.

_______________________________________________________________________

Why should I be outraged over another left-wing's lie?
It didn't happen but hey, when the liberals can float a lie and their corrupt media cronies roll with whatever they are told go for it.

Bill Clinton actually did sexually assaulted and raped women and that seems fine with the liberals.




What part of the Republican double standard don't you get?


There have been three aligations, and all seem credible. Seemed like everyone was slow to believe the aligations against Bill Cosby too.

http://reverbpress.com/sexes/why-does-the-media-ignore-sexual-assault-claim s-vs-trump/

_______________________________________________________________________

No proof, no creditable accusers... nothing.

Bill Clinton sexually assaulted and raped women and it has been proven. He actually paid a settlement to one of the women he raped.

Now I know raping women is all good with the liberals but not with anyone with a conscience.



Actually, against Clinton it wasn't proven, And your last sentence shows what a jackass you are.


bob1954 - 7/25/2016 at 06:15 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Saw an interesting observation today. Can you imagine the reaction by the Republicans if Obama (or any Democratic nominee) appeared on stage with his 5 children from 3 different wives?

The family values party. Lol.


David Duke running for the seat vacated by David Vitter (DC family values GOP Senator of prostitute fame). Both are outstanding choices for the folks from Louisiana.

_________________________________________________________________________

Yet Bill Clinton sexually assaulted and raped women and that is all good with the left.

You think Monica will escort Bill Clinton on stage at The DNC?




Yet you seem to be ok with the rape aligations against Trump. I'm definitely not voting for anybody who rapes a 13 year old.

_______________________________________________________________________

Why should I be outraged over another left-wing's lie?
It didn't happen but hey, when the liberals can float a lie and their corrupt media cronies roll with whatever they are told go for it.

Bill Clinton actually did sexually assaulted and raped women and that seems fine with the liberals.




What part of the Republican double standard don't you get?


There have been three aligations, and all seem credible. Seemed like everyone was slow to believe the aligations against Bill Cosby too.

http://reverbpress.com/sexes/why-does-the-media-ignore-sexual-assault-claim s-vs-trump/

_______________________________________________________________________

No proof, no creditable accusers... nothing.

Bill Clinton sexually assaulted and raped women and it has been proven. He actually paid a settlement to one of the women he raped.

Now I know raping women is all good with the liberals but not with anyone with a conscience.


Actually, against Clinton it wasn't proven, And your last sentence shows what a jackass you are.

There are also rape allegations against Trump. Only time will tell if they get any traction. And don't forget, the fact that Clinton is (or was) a lech does not mean Trump is a good guy.


Muleman1994 - 7/25/2016 at 06:23 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Saw an interesting observation today. Can you imagine the reaction by the Republicans if Obama (or any Democratic nominee) appeared on stage with his 5 children from 3 different wives?

The family values party. Lol.


David Duke running for the seat vacated by David Vitter (DC family values GOP Senator of prostitute fame). Both are outstanding choices for the folks from Louisiana.

_________________________________________________________________________

Yet Bill Clinton sexually assaulted and raped women and that is all good with the left.

You think Monica will escort Bill Clinton on stage at The DNC?




Yet you seem to be ok with the rape aligations against Trump. I'm definitely not voting for anybody who rapes a 13 year old.

_______________________________________________________________________

Why should I be outraged over another left-wing's lie?
It didn't happen but hey, when the liberals can float a lie and their corrupt media cronies roll with whatever they are told go for it.

Bill Clinton actually did sexually assaulted and raped women and that seems fine with the liberals.




What part of the Republican double standard don't you get?


There have been three aligations, and all seem credible. Seemed like everyone was slow to believe the aligations against Bill Cosby too.

http://reverbpress.com/sexes/why-does-the-media-ignore-sexual-assault-claim s-vs-trump/

_______________________________________________________________________

No proof, no creditable accusers... nothing.

Bill Clinton sexually assaulted and raped women and it has been proven. He actually paid a settlement to one of the women he raped.

Now I know raping women is all good with the liberals but not with anyone with a conscience.


Actually, against Clinton it wasn't proven, And your last sentence shows what a jackass you are.

There are also rape allegations against Trump. Only time will tell if they get any traction. And don't forget, the fact that Clinton is (or was) a lech does not mean Trump is a good guy.

________________________________________________________________________

No proof, no creditable accusers... nothing.

This is typical Democrat politics.
When you have nothing, lie.

The NY Times tried, with a front page above the fold multi-page hit piece about the lefts "Trump's Treatment of Women"
All three women featured in the article have said that the NY Times "reporter" promised them this would not be a hit piece.
The "reporter" misrepresented what the women actually said and flat out lied.
All three women have refuted the false allegations made by The NY Times.

This is typical Democrat politics.
When you have nothing, lie.


BoytonBrother - 7/25/2016 at 06:24 PM

Putin wants to destroy Nato. Russian oligarchs lend Trump money. Trump says he admires Putin and Nato is bad. Russians hack DNC. Hmm.


jkeller - 7/25/2016 at 06:30 PM

quote:
Putin wants to destroy Nato. Russian oligarchs lend Trump money. Trump says he admires Putin and Nato is bad. Russians hack DNC. Hmm.



And mule, alloak and Goob totally ignore this. But Debbie Wasserman=Shultz is important and must be discussed.


Muleman1994 - 7/25/2016 at 06:31 PM

quote:
Putin wants to destroy Nato. Russian oligarchs lend Trump money. Trump says he admires Putin and Nato is bad. Russians hack DNC. Hmm.

________________________________________________________________________

Keep spinning it son.

Putin and the Russians have always wanted to destroy NATO. Their best chance is Hillary Clinton who will be nothing more than a 3rd Obama term of failure.

Hillary Clinton takes tens of millions of dollars from nations that support terrorism, deny women any rights and kill homosexuals.

Kindly provide you proof the the Russians hacked The DNC and forward a copy to the FBI who today said they have no evidence that the Russians had anything to do with it.
You do love the FBI right? They bent over and took it for Hillary.



BoytonBrother - 7/25/2016 at 06:37 PM

son, LOL, so tough, look out! Ok Mule, I'll get right on that proof. I'll research it right away sir! Just sit tight.


BoytonBrother - 7/25/2016 at 06:38 PM

It's pretty stupid to assume one likes something just because he criticizes something else.


OriginalGoober - 7/25/2016 at 06:39 PM


Bhawk - 7/25/2016 at 06:40 PM

quote:
Kindly provide you proof the the Russians hacked The DNC and forward a copy to the FBI who today said they have no evidence that the Russians had anything to do with it.


I can't find anywhere where the FBI stated that in that particular way. Help me find?


BIGV - 7/25/2016 at 06:47 PM

quote:
It's pretty stupid to assume one likes something just because he criticizes something else.


Agreed.....and awfully defensive


Muleman1994 - 7/25/2016 at 07:08 PM

quote:
son, LOL, so tough, look out! Ok Mule, I'll get right on that proof. I'll research it right away sir! Just sit tight.

__________________________________________________________________________

Oh please do.
It doesn't exist but your need to lie outweighs your ability to admit it.


BoytonBrother - 7/25/2016 at 07:34 PM

I'll bet you are single.


gondicar - 7/26/2016 at 12:26 PM

Some facts about Trump and the Russian leader he says that he admires so much...connecting these dots leads to a theory, actually several (not mine), that you may or may not buy into, but the facts are the facts...


1. Trump's debt load has grown dramatically over the last year, from $350 million to $630 million. At the same time, hes been blackballed by all major US banks.

2. Post-bankruptcy, Trump has become highly reliant on money from Russia -- most of which has over the years become increasingly concentrated among oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin.

3. Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager and top advisor, spent most of the last decade as top campaign and communications advisor to Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian Ukrainian Prime Minister and then President whose ouster in 2014 led to the on-going crisis and proxy war in Ukraine. Yanukovych was and remains a close ally of Putin.

4. Trump's foreign policy advisor on Russia and Europe is Carter Page, a man whose entire professional career has revolved around investments in Russia and who has deep and continuing financial and employment ties to Gazprom, which, in turn, is part of Putins financial empire.

5. Over the course of the last year, Putin has aligned all Russian state controlled media behind Trump.

6. The Trump Camp was totally indifferent to the Republican Party platform, with one exception: They changed the party platform to eliminate assistance to Ukraine against Russian military operations in eastern Ukraine. Not incidentally, this is the single most important issue to Putin.

7. Trump is also suggesting the US and thus NATO might not come to the defense of NATO member states in the Baltics in the case of a Russian invasion -- another important issue to Putin.

Here's one take on how all this ties together (without even delving into the possible connection to the DNC email hack that the FBI is now investigating)...

To put this all into perspective, if Vladimir Putin were simply the CEO of a major American corporation and there was this much money flowing in Trump's direction, combined with this much solicitousness of Putin's policy agenda, it would set off alarm bells galore. That is not hyperbole or exaggeration. And yet Putin is not the CEO of an American corporation. He's the autocrat who rules a foreign state, with an increasingly hostile posture towards the United States and a substantial stockpile of nuclear weapons. The stakes involved in finding out 'what's going on' as Trump might put it are quite a bit higher.

There is something between a non-trivial and a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence for a financial relationship between Trump and Putin or a non-tacit alliance between the two men. Even if you draw no adverse conclusions, Trump's financial empire is heavily leveraged and has a deep reliance on capital infusions from oligarchs and other sources of wealth aligned with Putin. That's simply not something that can be waved off or ignored.


Is any of this worth talking about or should we just ignore it all?


alloak41 - 7/26/2016 at 03:31 PM

The Cold War is over. Russia is pretty much a non-factor. Ask Obama.


Swifty - 7/26/2016 at 03:54 PM

quote:
The Cold War is over. Russia is pretty much a non-factor. Ask Obama.


President Obama basically stated that US sanctions against Ukraine did not amount to a new cold war. Russia though continues to have imperial designs and Trump's comments on NATO and the EU indicate that if he were president he would not come to the defense of European nations if Russia decided to say occupy Poland.

There is now going to be increased pressure on Trump to release his tax returns which might reveal the extent of his financial involvement with Russia.

The Clinton Foundation should submit to similar scrutiny. Clinton should also release the transcripts from speeches she gave to Wall Street.

There should be total transparency on both sides.


gondicar - 7/26/2016 at 03:59 PM

quote:
The Cold War is over. Russia is pretty much a non-factor. Ask Obama.

So is that a no, it's not worth discussing?


BrerRabbit - 7/26/2016 at 04:07 PM

Nine countries in the world possess a total of 15,375 nuclear weapons. The United States and Russia account for 93 percent of them. Russia 7300, USA 6970.

Cold war is not over.


OriginalGoober - 7/26/2016 at 04:50 PM

With all the Trump -Russia chatter going on, I would like to point out Putins biggest allay and booster, PResident Obama.

1) Obama scrapped the proposed missle defense shield to be built in Poland, removing a deterrent for Putin and also, weakening relations with a key EU and NATO ally. I guess he needed the cash to give to the Ayotollah of Iran, his international pen pal buddy.
2. Obama golfed instead of attending the Polish President funeral when his plane went down with a large part of his government.
3) Ignored Putin after he squashed Georgia move to join NATO
4) With Obama neutered after his failure of the Syrian Red Line threat, Putin advanced and took Crimea and submitted Ukraine.
5) Neutered Barry is still looking clueless against a real global threat such as ISIS.




gondicar - 7/26/2016 at 04:55 PM

quote:
With all the Trump -Russia chatter going on, I would like to point out Putins biggest allay and booster, PResident Obama.

Bwaaaaaaa ha haaa ha aha haaaa ha haaaa!!!!! Priceless!!!


Bhawk - 7/26/2016 at 04:59 PM

What's an allay?


bob1954 - 7/26/2016 at 05:04 PM

quote:
What's an allay?

Where you go bowling?


gondicar - 7/26/2016 at 05:31 PM

"The Kremlin is clearly happy to see a Republican candidate who preaches disbanding NATO (or throwing it into debtors prison) and advocates an American retreat from the world stage. If America retreats, Russia advances, nipping at its heels. See, for example, Syria. If Americas role in the world shrinks, Russias role in the world grows. This is how Putin sees it. Russia will get stronger because America will get weaker. This is why he is overtly throwing in for Trump, who has also lavishly complimented him." - Foreign Policy Magazine


alloak41 - 7/26/2016 at 05:44 PM

quote:
quote:
What's an allay?

Where you go bowling?


No. When Al gets laid it's an allay.


alloak41 - 7/26/2016 at 06:39 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
I get what you're saying, but if we look at this in its purest since, then we have to conclude that a classification of "great candidate" is a candidate that should win. Otherwise we can accept that a "great candidate" is just that - an exercise in exciting subsets of voters but a candidate who can't win. If the "end" is elect-ability / winning, then I believe he'll fall short. If that is the case, then I'll stick with my point of "This will be yet another election the GOP loses due to putting up a bad candidate."


True. He can win the nomination but not the election. IMO.

Interesting Trump has such a diverse base of support. There was a program on this topic yesterday on NPR. A caller who identified himself as a former Rand Paul supporter said he's considering Trump or Sanders because ultimately he doesn't care about the abortion/gay marriage/religious talking points anymore. He just wants anti-establishment.






He does have a base - many of the angry voters & many standard GOP voters who will vote for him. I have seen stats where 20 + pct. of Republicans said they'll never vote for him.

Re: diverse support - Women make up biggest voting block, & in national election I doubt he takes that significant segment of voters. He won't win the black vote, and with his "kind" words he can write off Hispanics where he's got an unfavorable rating of about 80%. Then there is the Muslim vote - another of his favorite targets, and I'm guessing he'd be in the single digits at best.


If he's failing to pull votes from the groups you mentioned, he would have to be getting about
96% of the white male vote to be in a virtual tie, which he clearly isn't. He's getting a lot of
votes from somewhere.


gondicar - 7/26/2016 at 08:31 PM

quote:
If he's failing to pull votes from the groups you mentioned, he would have to be getting about
96% of the white male vote to be in a virtual tie, which he clearly isn't. He's getting a lot of
votes from somewhere.

Beyond the primaries, which only account for a relatively small part of the entire electorate (i.e. committed/engaged Rs or Ds, especially in states where you must be enrolled in a party to vote in the primary) neither candidate has gotten any votes yet. We're talking polls, and polls are often wrong (just look at the swings of as much as 10 points between the various polling orgs) especially when it comes to measuring impacts of voting blocks. I know you probably know this, and it doesn't change the validity of the point you are making, but just seemed worth calling it out.


gondicar - 7/27/2016 at 12:15 AM

So presidential. :eyeroll:

Hotel fights back after Donald Trump threatens to not pay

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/26/politics/donald-trump-hotel-air-conditioning- roanoke/index.html


gondicar - 7/27/2016 at 09:11 PM

According to Trump this should not be possible...


Swifty - 7/27/2016 at 10:05 PM


quote:
"Donald Trump wont be releasing his tax returns, his campaign chairman reiterated today, despite renewed calls for Trump to do so amid questions about whether he has financial ties to Russia.

"Mr. Trump has said that his taxes are under audit and he will not be releasing them," Paul Manafort said in an interview with CBS."




http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-no-release-tax-returns-226299


gondicar - 7/28/2016 at 06:47 PM

Anyone else remember in 2007 when the entire GOP said, "Do you really want a President with NO EXPERIENCE?"


BoytonBrother - 7/28/2016 at 07:24 PM

I thought Kaine made the best point about Trump. He has an opportunity to explain to his voters exactly how he plans to do all these things, but he's not seizing it. Instead, he just says "believe me". Wouldn't voters expect more? Oh wait, his voters are all racist trash, I forgot.


gondicar - 7/28/2016 at 07:38 PM

"Does anyone really believe that a guy whos spent his seventy years on this earth showing no regard for working people is suddenly going to be your champion? Your voice? If so, you should vote for him...He suggests America is weak...He cozies up to Putin, praises Saddam Hussein, and tells the NATO allies that stood by our side after 9/11 that they have to pay up if they want our protection. America is already great. America is already strong. And I promise you, our strength, our greatness, does not depend on Donald Trump...Hes selling the American people short. We are not a fragile people, were not a frightful people. Our power doesnt come from some self-declared savior promising that he alone can restore order as long as we do things his way. We dont look to be ruled...Anyone who threatens our values, whether Fascists or Communists or jihadists or homegrown demagogues, will always fail in the end."


gondicar - 7/29/2016 at 03:58 AM

This apple landed right at the bottom of the tree. What a tool.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-jr-says-obama-lifted-ph rase-his-rnc-speech-n618916


2112 - 7/29/2016 at 07:44 PM

Trump threatens to punch DNC Speakers

http://newcenturytimes.com/2016/07/28/trump-reacts-to-dnc-speakers-by-threa tening-to-punch-them-video/

Ok, I no longer think he is a thin skinned bully. I honestly think he is mentally ill. Nobody in his right mind would say this.


bob1954 - 7/29/2016 at 08:27 PM

quote:
Trump threatens to punch DNC Speakers

http://newcenturytimes.com/2016/07/28/trump-reacts-to-dnc-speakers-by-threa tening-to-punch-them-video/

Ok, I no longer think he is a thin skinned bully. I honestly think he is mentally ill. Nobody in his right mind would say this.

What a putz. Looking back at the list of DNC speakers I can't find one that I think he could take.

Of course he was speaking figuratively. When says he would hit them "so hard their head would spin" he means he would call them names. Just like he did in the primaries. It's like watching a 2nd grade bully. But his followers eat it up so it isn't going to stop.


pops42 - 7/29/2016 at 08:32 PM

I'm sure bloomberg is shaking in his boots


2112 - 7/29/2016 at 09:13 PM

Luckily, if he did punch someone it probably wouldn't hurt very much, you know having such small hands and all.


pops42 - 7/29/2016 at 09:51 PM

"Donald Trump is a pussy" Gary Johnson..........


Jerry - 7/30/2016 at 01:15 AM

quote:
I thought Kaine made the best point about Trump. He has an opportunity to explain to his voters exactly how he plans to do all these things, but he's not seizing it. Instead, he just says "believe me". Wouldn't voters expect more? Oh wait, his voters are all racist trash, I forgot.


Only as much as those who would vote for RHC.


bob1954 - 7/30/2016 at 01:18 AM

quote:
quote:
I thought Kaine made the best point about Trump. He has an opportunity to explain to his voters exactly how he plans to do all these things, but he's not seizing it. Instead, he just says "believe me". Wouldn't voters expect more? Oh wait, his voters are all racist trash, I forgot.

Only as much as those who would vote for RHC.

RHC. Rural Health Clinic? Radio Havana Cuba? Relativistic Heat Conduction? You need to be more specific.


Jerry - 7/30/2016 at 01:25 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
I thought Kaine made the best point about Trump. He has an opportunity to explain to his voters exactly how he plans to do all these things, but he's not seizing it. Instead, he just says "believe me". Wouldn't voters expect more? Oh wait, his voters are all racist trash, I forgot.

Only as much as those who would vote for RHC.

RHC. Rural Health Clinic? Radio Havana Cuba? Relativistic Heat Conduction? You need to be more specific.


Sorry, I have heard so many times the phrase Rotten Hillary Clinton while traveling that I put the initials down in the wrong order. I meant HRC.


alloak41 - 7/30/2016 at 01:51 AM

quote:
I thought Kaine made the best point about Trump. He has an opportunity to explain to his voters exactly how he plans to do all these things, but he's not seizing it.


And which one does? None of them do. A campaign speech is not the time for it, rather to
express their broad ideas and agenda. To be fair, this hardly started with Trump.


jkeller - 7/30/2016 at 01:59 AM

quote:
quote:
I thought Kaine made the best point about Trump. He has an opportunity to explain to his voters exactly how he plans to do all these things, but he's not seizing it.


And which one does? None of them do. A campaign speech is not the time for it, rather to
express their broad ideas and agenda. To be fair, this hardly started with Trump.




Actually you are wrong. Candidates say what they want to do and how they plan to do it. Trump says "believe me". As he lies so much, do you believe him? Seeing as how he hires contractors and refuses to pay them, do think he means anything when he says "believe me"?


gondicar - 7/30/2016 at 02:10 AM

quote:
quote:
I thought Kaine made the best point about Trump. He has an opportunity to explain to his voters exactly how he plans to do all these things, but he's not seizing it.


And which one does? None of them do. A campaign speech is not the time for it, rather to
express their broad ideas and agenda. To be fair, this hardly started with Trump.



Wait, what? They all do it so no big deal?? I can't believe you of all people just went there. End times!!


alloak41 - 7/30/2016 at 02:17 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
I thought Kaine made the best point about Trump. He has an opportunity to explain to his voters exactly how he plans to do all these things, but he's not seizing it.


And which one does? None of them do. A campaign speech is not the time for it, rather to
express their broad ideas and agenda. To be fair, this hardly started with Trump.



Wait, what? They all do it so no big deal?? I can't believe you of all people just went there. End times!!


My predict a response streak is still alive.


jkeller - 7/30/2016 at 02:25 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I thought Kaine made the best point about Trump. He has an opportunity to explain to his voters exactly how he plans to do all these things, but he's not seizing it.


And which one does? None of them do. A campaign speech is not the time for it, rather to
express their broad ideas and agenda. To be fair, this hardly started with Trump.



Wait, what? They all do it so no big deal?? I can't believe you of all people just went there. End times!!


My predict a response streak is still alive.


No, you don't have enough imagination.


alloak41 - 7/30/2016 at 02:26 AM

Broad ideas and an agenda give the voters an idea where the candidate stands and on what
he/she thinks is important. The campaign has never been the time for details, and chances are
the folks clamoring for specifics and step by step guidebook simply don't like the candidate.


alloak41 - 7/30/2016 at 02:28 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I thought Kaine made the best point about Trump. He has an opportunity to explain to his voters exactly how he plans to do all these things, but he's not seizing it.


And which one does? None of them do. A campaign speech is not the time for it, rather to
express their broad ideas and agenda. To be fair, this hardly started with Trump.



Wait, what? They all do it so no big deal?? I can't believe you of all people just went there. End times!!


My predict a response streak is still alive.


No, you don't have enough imagination.


Even if that were true It doesn't take much imagination. Far too easy for that.


jkeller - 7/30/2016 at 02:37 AM

quote:
Broad ideas and an agenda give the voters an idea where the candidate stands and on what
he/she thinks is important. The campaign has never been the time for details, and chances are
the folks clamoring for specifics and step by step guidebook simply don't like the candidate.


Nobody is calling for a step by step guidebook. However, let's look at a few things.

Trump says he will deport all illegal immigrants, something like 11 million of them. The law requires each illegal to have a hearing before they can be deported. This would take many years. How can he possibly do it?

He claims he will build a wall on the Mexican border. He says he will make Mexico pay for it. Mexico laughs at that. How will he do it? The cost would be enormous.

He claims he will ban Muslims from entering the US. There is no legal way to do that.

He will not support NATO allies who don't pay their way. This will strain relationships that are important to our security. It will violate an agreement with many countries.

His tax plan would cost the country 3 trillion dollars, yet he won't explain how to cover that amouny.

He says a lot and you slurp it up, taking an habitual liar at his word. he is a guy who has built a fortune on lying and stealing from those who worked for him or invested with him. And you slurp it up.


MartinD28 - 7/30/2016 at 02:48 AM

quote:
quote:
Broad ideas and an agenda give the voters an idea where the candidate stands and on what
he/she thinks is important. The campaign has never been the time for details, and chances are
the folks clamoring for specifics and step by step guidebook simply don't like the candidate.


Nobody is calling for a step by step guidebook. However, let's look at a few things.

Trump says he will deport all illegal immigrants, something like 11 million of them. The law requires each illegal to have a hearing before they can be deported. This would take many years. How can he possibly do it?

He claims he will build a wall on the Mexican border. He says he will make Mexico pay for it. Mexico laughs at that. How will he do it? The cost would be enormous.

He claims he will ban Muslims from entering the US. There is no legal way to do that.

He will not support NATO allies who don't pay their way. This will strain relationships that are important to our security. It will violate an agreement with many countries.

His tax plan would cost the country 3 trillion dollars, yet he won't explain how to cover that amouny.

He says a lot and you slurp it up, taking an habitual liar at his word. he is a guy who has built a fortune on lying and stealing from those who worked for him or invested with him. And you slurp it up.


X2

alloak,

Are you concerned with the practicality of the points keller has listed? You don't really think much of what Trump has stated is possible do you? Where are the details in the implementation of these ideas...they don't exist because Donald would never be able to make them happen.

Details do matter, and people of both parties should want to understand a candidate's plans to achieve what he or she states in speeches. Believe that.


alloak41 - 7/30/2016 at 03:03 AM

Which came first, the idea of the Ford Mustang or the design of the ignition system? Administrators
lay out visions and broad ideas. They build a team to work out the details. See where we're headed
here?


alloak41 - 7/30/2016 at 03:10 AM

quote:
alllloak,

Are you concerned with the practicality of the points keller has listed?


Actually no. I read very few, if any of his posts. If I wanted personal comments and snide
remarks I would have stayed married.


jkeller - 7/30/2016 at 03:21 AM

quote:
Which came first, the idea of the Ford Mustang or the design of the ignition system? Administrators
lay out visions and broad ideas. They build a team to work out the details. See where we're headed
here?


The ignition system, engines, suspension etc. all were designed before the Mustang. Some were used on other cars before the Mustang. So, your premise doesn't hold water.


jkeller - 7/30/2016 at 03:22 AM

quote:
quote:
alllloak,

Are you concerned with the practicality of the points keller has listed?


Actually no. I read very few, if any of his posts. If I wanted personal comments and snide
remarks I would have stayed married.


That's funny since you reply to most of my posts. As for snide remarks, you are the king of those.


2112 - 7/30/2016 at 07:21 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Saw an interesting observation today. Can you imagine the reaction by the Republicans if Obama (or any Democratic nominee) appeared on stage with his 5 children from 3 different wives?

The family values party. Lol.


David Duke running for the seat vacated by David Vitter (DC family values GOP Senator of prostitute fame). Both are outstanding choices for the folks from Louisiana.

_________________________________________________________________________

Yet Bill Clinton sexually assaulted and raped women and that is all good with the left.

You think Monica will escort Bill Clinton on stage at The DNC?




Yet you seem to be ok with the rape aligations against Trump. I'm definitely not voting for anybody who rapes a 13 year old.

_______________________________________________________________________

Why should I be outraged over another left-wing's lie?
It didn't happen but hey, when the liberals can float a lie and their corrupt media cronies roll with whatever they are told go for it.

Bill Clinton actually did sexually assaulted and raped women and that seems fine with the liberals.




I'd like to know how you know it didn't happen? Do you follow Trump around witnessing his every move for the last several decades? Somebody hired by Trump to watch the girl stated that she witnessed it.


bob1954 - 7/30/2016 at 01:31 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Saw an interesting observation today. Can you imagine the reaction by the Republicans if Obama (or any Democratic nominee) appeared on stage with his 5 children from 3 different wives?

The family values party. Lol.


David Duke running for the seat vacated by David Vitter (DC family values GOP Senator of prostitute fame). Both are outstanding choices for the folks from Louisiana.

_________________________________________________________________________

Yet Bill Clinton sexually assaulted and raped women and that is all good with the left.

You think Monica will escort Bill Clinton on stage at The DNC?




Yet you seem to be ok with the rape aligations against Trump. I'm definitely not voting for anybody who rapes a 13 year old.

_______________________________________________________________________

Why should I be outraged over another left-wing's lie?
It didn't happen but hey, when the liberals can float a lie and their corrupt media cronies roll with whatever they are told go for it.

Bill Clinton actually did sexually assaulted and raped women and that seems fine with the liberals.




I'd like to know how you know it didn't happen? Do you follow Trump around witnessing his every move for the last several decades? Somebody hired by Trump to watch the girl stated that she witnessed it.

As a rich, powerful man engaged in a political campaign he is a prime target for false accusations. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt regarding the rape charges unless clear evidence in presented. I think there are enough other things to show he is unquestionably unqualified for the office of President.


BrerRabbit - 7/30/2016 at 08:20 PM

quote:
I think there are enough other things to show he is unquestionably unqualified for the office of President.


Really? He seems like charlatan to me. And a an arrogant blowhard.

Name three things that show he is unquestionably unqualified for the office of President.


bob1954 - 7/30/2016 at 08:28 PM

quote:
quote:
I think there are enough other things to show he is unquestionably unqualified for the office of President.


Really? He seems like charlatan to me. And a an arrogant blowhard.

Name three things that show he is unquestionably unqualified for the office of President.

You just named two so I only have to add three, right? OK, here they are:

1. He has absolutely no regard for how the Constitution limits the power of the federal government. He does not understand that the federal governments powers are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution.
2. He does not understand the concept of checks and balances. He thinks that "he alone" can enact policies by edict.
3. He has no regard for the rights of individuals guaranteed by the Constitution. He thinks it is OK to discriminate based upon religion, gender, or ethnicity.

If you need more let me know, but I think you get the idea.

[Edited on 7/30/2016 by bob1954]


BrerRabbit - 7/30/2016 at 10:05 PM




Union Sundown

Bob Dylan

Well, my shoes, they come from Singapore
My flashlight's from Taiwan
My tablecloth's from Malaysia
My belt buckle's from the Amazon
You know, this shirt I wear comes from the Philippines
And the car I drive is a Chevrolet
It was put together down in Argentina
By a guy making thirty cents a day

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the USA
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way

Well, this silk dress is from Hong Kong
And the pearls are from Japan
Well, the dog collar's from India
And the flower pot's from Pakistan
All the furniture it said 'Made in Brazil'
Where a woman, she slaved for sure
Bringing home thirty cents a day to a family of twelve
You know, that's a lot of money to her

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the USA
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way

Well, you know lots of people are complaining that there is no work
I say,"Why you say that for
When nothing you got is US made?"
They don't make nothing here no more
You know, capitalism is above the law
I say,"It don't count 'less it sells"
When it costs too much to build it at home
You just build it cheaper someplace else

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the USA
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way

Well, the job that you used to have
They gave it to somebody down in El Salvador
The unions are big business, friend
And they're going out like a dinosaur
But they used to grow food in Kansas
Now they grow it on the moon and eat it raw
I can see the day coming when even your home garden
Is gonna be against the law

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the USA
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way

Democracy don't rule the world
You better get that in your head
This world is ruled by violence
But I guess that's better left unsaid
From Broadway to the Milky Way
That's a lot of territory indeed
And a man's gonna do what he has to do
When he's got a hungry mouth to feed

Well, it' sundown on the union
And what's made in the USA
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way

Songwriters: BOB DYLAN

BOB DYLAN MUSIC CO

For non-commercial use only.
.


gondicar - 7/31/2016 at 12:20 PM

"Any one of Trumps less-than-sterling qualities his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demagoguery, his contempt for the rule of law, his ignorance is enough to be disqualifying. His convention-speech comment, I alone can fix it, should make every American shudder. He is, we believe, a danger to the Republic."

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/07/29/both-campaigns-stunned-after-houston -chronicle-makes-very-surprising-endorsement/


LeglizHemp - 8/1/2016 at 04:56 PM

Donald Trump Hired Me As An Attorney. Please Dont Support Him For President.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-hired-me-as-an-attorneyple ase-dont_us_579e52dee4b00e7e269fb30f?section=&

How Paul Manafort Wielded Power in Ukraine Before Advising Donald Trump

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/us/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.htm l?_r=0


alloak41 - 8/1/2016 at 05:59 PM

quote:
"Any one of Trumps less-than-sterling qualities his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demagoguery, his contempt for the rule of law, his ignorance is enough to be disqualifying. His convention-speech comment, I alone can fix it, should make every American shudder. He is, we believe, a danger to the Republic."

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/07/29/both-campaigns-stunned-after-houston -chronicle-makes-very-surprising-endorsement/


I was once employed by the Houston Chronicle. Don't even get me started. Other than the sports
section, of which I was a part....a rag.


MartinD28 - 8/1/2016 at 06:17 PM

quote:
quote:
"Any one of Trumps less-than-sterling qualities his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demagoguery, his contempt for the rule of law, his ignorance is enough to be disqualifying. His convention-speech comment, I alone can fix it, should make every American shudder. He is, we believe, a danger to the Republic."

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/07/29/both-campaigns-stunned-after-houston -chronicle-makes-very-surprising-endorsement/


I was once employed by the Houston Chronicle. Don't even get me started. Other than the sports
section, of which I was a part....a rag.


We doubt you would have bothered to post that if the Houston Chronicle gave a glowing endorsement of Trump.


alloak41 - 8/1/2016 at 06:20 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
"Any one of Trumps less-than-sterling qualities his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demagoguery, his contempt for the rule of law, his ignorance is enough to be disqualifying. His convention-speech comment, I alone can fix it, should make every American shudder. He is, we believe, a danger to the Republic."

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/07/29/both-campaigns-stunned-after-houston -chronicle-makes-very-surprising-endorsement/


I was once employed by the Houston Chronicle. Don't even get me started. Other than the sports
section, of which I was a part....a rag.


We doubt you would have bothered to post that if the Houston Chronicle gave a glowing endorsement of Trump.


Wrong. My comment stands. regardless.


bob1954 - 8/1/2016 at 06:24 PM

quote:
quote:
"Any one of Trumps less-than-sterling qualities his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demagoguery, his contempt for the rule of law, his ignorance is enough to be disqualifying. His convention-speech comment, I alone can fix it, should make every American shudder. He is, we believe, a danger to the Republic."

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/07/29/both-campaigns-stunned-after-houston -chronicle-makes-very-surprising-endorsement/


I was once employed by the Houston Chronicle. Don't even get me started. Other than the sports
section, of which I was a part....a rag.

Good endorsement though. Their reasoning appears sound. Maybe they consulted the sports dept.


rmack - 8/1/2016 at 06:38 PM

quote:
quote:
Broad ideas and an agenda give the voters an idea where the candidate stands and on what
he/she thinks is important. The campaign has never been the time for details, and chances are
the folks clamoring for specifics and step by step guidebook simply don't like the candidate.


Nobody is calling for a step by step guidebook. However, let's look at a few things.

Trump says he will deport all illegal immigrants, something like 11 million of them. The law requires each illegal to have a hearing before they can be deported. This would take many years. How can he possibly do it?

He claims he will build a wall on the Mexican border. He says he will make Mexico pay for it. Mexico laughs at that. How will he do it? The cost would be enormous.

He claims he will ban Muslims from entering the US. There is no legal way to do that.

He will not support NATO allies who don't pay their way. This will strain relationships that are important to our security. It will violate an agreement with many countries.

His tax plan would cost the country 3 trillion dollars, yet he won't explain how to cover that amouny.

He says a lot and you slurp it up, taking an habitual liar at his word. he is a guy who has built a fortune on lying and stealing from those who worked for him or invested with him. And you slurp it up.


Well put. I say again, anyone who supports the Trump candidacy and believes he would make a good president and is ready and equipped for the job is, at best, an absolute idiot.


Bhawk - 8/1/2016 at 09:06 PM

I cannot believe the GOP candidate for President has actually been condemned for his actions by the VFW and Gold Star parents. Incredible.


BoytonBrother - 8/1/2016 at 10:34 PM

It doesn't matter Bhawk. See, ever since 9/11 liberals have been lashing out at conservatives for their differences in values, which directly contradicts their own mantra of preaching acceptance, understanding, and equality for all. Despite how dangerous he will be, conservatives will vote him in, not because they believe he is the best candidate, but to expose the hypocrisy among liberals. To expose them is the most important issue.


Swifty - 8/1/2016 at 10:37 PM

quote:
I cannot believe the GOP candidate for President has actually been condemned for his actions by the VFW and Gold Star parents. Incredible.


Why not? What remains of the right is bereft of any kind of an identity. Donald Trump leads the party now and the parts of his policies which arent pro-Russia are made up daily. GOP congressmen as well as Fox are basically apologists for whatever turn Trump takes on any given day. The Democrats with their convention stole all the defining GOP symbols like patriotism, religion, etc. The intellectual republicans like George Will, Bill Kristol and Kathleen Parker are long gone.


rmack - 8/1/2016 at 11:43 PM

quote:
It doesn't matter Bhawk. See, ever since 9/11 liberals have been lashing out at conservatives for their differences in values, which directly contradicts their own mantra of preaching acceptance, understanding, and equality for all. Despite how dangerous he will be, conservatives will vote him in, not because they believe he is the best candidate, but to expose the hypocrisy among liberals. To expose them is the most important issue.


As I saididiots.


LeglizHemp - 8/1/2016 at 11:51 PM

quote:
quote:
I cannot believe the GOP candidate for President has actually been condemned for his actions by the VFW and Gold Star parents. Incredible.


Why not? What remains of the right is bereft of any kind of an identity. Donald Trump leads the party now and the parts of his policies which arent pro-Russia are made up daily. GOP congressmen as well as Fox are basically apologists for whatever turn Trump takes on any given day. The Democrats with their convention stole all the defining GOP symbols like patriotism, religion, etc. The intellectual republicans like George Will, Bill Kristol and Kathleen Parker are long gone.


what i find the most strange is that damn near everytime Trump says something.....the interpreters come out in force. how come we can't understand what he means when he speaks? why does someone else always have to interpret or clarify his statements? how come we don't understand english or why does his use of english not make sense to us?


MartinD28 - 8/2/2016 at 12:09 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
I cannot believe the GOP candidate for President has actually been condemned for his actions by the VFW and Gold Star parents. Incredible.


Why not? What remains of the right is bereft of any kind of an identity. Donald Trump leads the party now and the parts of his policies which arent pro-Russia are made up daily. GOP congressmen as well as Fox are basically apologists for whatever turn Trump takes on any given day. The Democrats with their convention stole all the defining GOP symbols like patriotism, religion, etc. The intellectual republicans like George Will, Bill Kristol and Kathleen Parker are long gone.


what i find the most strange is that damn near everytime Trump says something.....the interpreters come out in force. how come we can't understand what he means when he speaks? why does someone else always have to interpret or clarify his statements? how come we don't understand english or why does his use of english not make sense to us?

Also how many times does Trump say one thing on day 1, get bad press, and on day 2 go after the bad bad media for misrepresenting his position? Or how many times on day 2 does he walk back or clarify his points as to "what he really meant"?

The non politician that some love in Trump is exposing him as ignorant of how the world works, his understanding of foreign affairs, etc. (example - Trump on Ukraine & Crimea).


cyclone88 - 8/2/2016 at 12:33 AM

what i find the most strange is that damn near everytime Trump says something.....the interpreters come out in force. how come we can't understand what he means when he speaks? why does someone else always have to interpret or clarify his statements? how come we don't understand english or why does his use of english not make sense to us?




Excellent point. Especially when he prides himself on being so forthright.


gondicar - 8/2/2016 at 12:58 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I cannot believe the GOP candidate for President has actually been condemned for his actions by the VFW and Gold Star parents. Incredible.


Why not? What remains of the right is bereft of any kind of an identity. Donald Trump leads the party now and the parts of his policies which arent pro-Russia are made up daily. GOP congressmen as well as Fox are basically apologists for whatever turn Trump takes on any given day. The Democrats with their convention stole all the defining GOP symbols like patriotism, religion, etc. The intellectual republicans like George Will, Bill Kristol and Kathleen Parker are long gone.


what i find the most strange is that damn near everytime Trump says something.....the interpreters come out in force. how come we can't understand what he means when he speaks? why does someone else always have to interpret or clarify his statements? how come we don't understand english or why does his use of english not make sense to us?

Also how many times does Trump say one thing on day 1, get bad press, and on day 2 go after the bad bad media for misrepresenting his position? Or how many times on day 2 does he walk back or clarify his points as to "what he really meant"?

The non politician that some love in Trump is exposing him as ignorant of how the world works, his understanding of foreign affairs, etc. (example - Trump on Ukraine & Crimea).


Ok, so I've seen this movie before. It is called "Paul LePage Governor of Maine" and it has been running for the last 6 years. And a word of warning to all those who have laughed at Trump's chances...not only did LePage get elected, he got reelected. In both cases he was elected with less than 50% of the vote because the traditional dem vote was split by 1 or more Independent on the ballot (and weak dem candidates). What's going on now nationally pretty much mirrors what happened in Maine, right down to the candidates behavior. It can happen folks, it can happen.


mainebigdog - 8/2/2016 at 02:38 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
I think there are enough other things to show he is unquestionably unqualified for the office of President.


Really? He seems like charlatan to me. And a an arrogant blowhard.

Name three things that show he is unquestionably unqualified for the office of President.

You just named two so I only have to add three, right? OK, here they are:

1. He has absolutely no regard for how the Constitution limits the power of the federal government. He does not understand that the federal governments powers are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution.
2. He does not understand the concept of checks and balances. He thinks that "he alone" can enact policies by edict.
3. He has no regard for the rights of individuals guaranteed by the Constitution. He thinks it is OK to discriminate based upon religion, gender, or ethnicity.

If you need more let me know, but I think you get the idea.

[Edited on 7/30/2016 by bob1954]


The first two suit Obama perfectly. Executive orders on immigration. Delaying the implementation of the ACA even though he signed it into law so the voters wouldn't get whacked with premium increases right before the election. That stufffs ok though.


gondicar - 8/2/2016 at 11:07 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I think there are enough other things to show he is unquestionably unqualified for the office of President.


Really? He seems like charlatan to me. And a an arrogant blowhard.

Name three things that show he is unquestionably unqualified for the office of President.

You just named two so I only have to add three, right? OK, here they are:

1. He has absolutely no regard for how the Constitution limits the power of the federal government. He does not understand that the federal governments powers are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution.
2. He does not understand the concept of checks and balances. He thinks that "he alone" can enact policies by edict.
3. He has no regard for the rights of individuals guaranteed by the Constitution. He thinks it is OK to discriminate based upon religion, gender, or ethnicity.

If you need more let me know, but I think you get the idea.

[Edited on 7/30/2016 by bob1954]


The first two suit Obama perfectly. Executive orders on immigration. Delaying the implementation of the ACA even though he signed it into law so the voters wouldn't get whacked with premium increases right before the election. That stufffs ok though.

Obama is not running for office. What do you think of these points as they apply to Trump?


gondicar - 8/2/2016 at 12:15 PM

Gotta love The Onion.

Trump Campaign Ponders Going Negative

NEW YORKSaying they werent afraid to take the gloves off for the general election if need be, the campaign team for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump reportedly considered the possibility Monday of pivoting their strategy and going negative. Weve tried to run a clean campaign that we can all take pride in, but if were truly serious about winning this thing, now