Nobody is talking about the devastating and destructive effect that a constitutional convention would have on this nation. Once you open that Pandora Box it's over. Anything goes and nothing would be off the table. This fact alone means Rubio would be among the most dangerous of those running for the Presidency this cycle.
I can't believe Trump has let this one slide so far.
VIDEO LINK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl...ENo59U5ofU
BTW, you're gonna want to view the video about Microsoft and Rubio in Iowa Caucuses too.
Tbh I didn't know that either but yeah that would NOT be a good thing at all. I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up. I'm also shocked that Trump hasn't hammered Rubio on his personal finance problems. He can't even manage his own finances so how's he going to manage a country? Smh....
Republicans are in great danger of losing a large number of members by screwing the voters this election.
RunItUpTheGut Wrote:Republicans are in great danger of losing a large number of members by screwing the voters this election.
I know I'm out if they manage to rob the people of their choice.
Speaking of Republicans, did you guys see where Lindsey Graham said, "If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial is at the Senate, No one will convict you." I mean this is a Senator talking about a Presidential candidate, just getting pathetic because they aren't getting their way, and they are now seeing the people has had enough of their crap.
^
Then he got Pelosi to rub one out for him back stage.
Ive said it for years. The democrats and establishment republicans are the exact same people.
"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by [SIZE="2"]usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." [/SIZE]---George Washington
USURPATONS: act of usurping; wrongful or illegal encroachment, infringement, or seizure.
This Con con deal has been a threat to the union since the very beginning. Washington recognized that fact and viewed such efforts to be nothing short of a coup d'etat against established government. So likely should we. In fact, it represented so great a threat in his mind that he chose to speak on the subject as he was leaving office, a partial text of which was lifted and quoted above. Rubio says he would support, or push, for a Con con on his first day in office. Can you just imagine little Rubio trying to round up Harry Reid et-al, while they are in full-on assault mode against the virtue of our beloved Constitution? :please: He'd stand a better chance controlling a room full of wildcats. There is an equally devastating threat however to a Con con, which would undoubtedly be the fastest way to throw our country into the dumpster. And that threat could come a number of ways.
First would be the obvious straight up appointment by Barack Obama in the form of another liberal Justice to the USSC. A liberal court could just as surely rule us into oblivion one case at a time over the course of the next decade. A much longer trajectory to get their way, but just as effective for practical purposes as a Con con.
Second would be in electing Hillary to succeed Obama. Volcanic liberalism would erupt from the Oval Office as we would see daily degradation to our way of life. And a word here to the wise. Under Obama we have seen government sanctioned, explosive unrest and violence from the black community against white people. If Hillary gets elected, you can expect her to play the race card every single day of her time in office. And if the history of such insurrection is in any way applicable in our time, the riots will get worse, and sooner rather than later. And of course, she would use black Americans to shield herself from the criticism she would no doubt deserve. Black people would do well to realize their white neighbors are their true friends, not DC elitists.
Two 'A' would be in electing little Rubio. He in my opinion, knows just enough to impress the casual observer with his high sounding rhetoric. While in his level of experience he is so junior as to actually be dangerous. Sort of like the 10 year old who confidently tells his Dad he can handle his double barrel 12 gage shotgun. I don't think so, but he is so sure. I apologize for my earlier comments in which I said he'd be better than Hillary Clinton. I must now withdraw that conclusion in light of his zealous efforts to initiate a Con con.
The media and the establishment are in full panic mode. Right now, their hopes to derail Trump lie completely with Rubio (the establishment choice for nominee) and Ted Cruz, who they will temporarily sidle up to in a classically sickening end justifies the means treachery of the sort that DC elites have become famous for.
Will Ted wake up and understand this fact, or will he do the liberal's and the establishment's dirty work for them?
The push is really on right now. Rubio is on FOX nearly 24/7. Super Tuesday is THE firewall and the establishment are really sweating bullets and desperately doing their best to sway the votes of the masses. You got to ask yourself why it is that Rubio seems so sure of himself all of a sudden. Has he won a state that I don't know about? And how could he guarantee Florida as a win for him when he's 22 points back? IMHO, the Republican big boys have been blowing him up lately with promises and backing.
Ben Carson came on this morning to report that the establishment Republicans actually offered to buy him off if he would drop out of the race. I mean, never in my wildest dreams did I think things would go this far and I though I knew what was coming. :yikes:
With regards of guarantees of a win in Florida, he's just hoping. No way Rubio wins Florida, they can't stand him right now. Carson is going to hang in there it seems no matter what. Lol. Right now I'm watching the news channels have a meltdown over this David Duke thing. They aren't smart enough to realize Trump just left them hanging so they would talk about him all day. He actually disavowed that bunch on Friday but they keep asking the same stupid questions over and over. When Jeff Sessions endorses him in Alabama tonight, which btw is one of the most consistent conservatives alive IMO, it will really turn up the heat on everyone. Lol
Demarcus ware Wrote:With regards of guarantees of a win in Florida, he's just hoping. No way Rubio wins Florida, they can't stand him right now. Carson is going to hang in there it seems no matter what. Lol. Right now I'm watching the news channels have a meltdown over this David Duke thing. They aren't smart enough to realize Trump just left them hanging so they would talk about him all day. He actually disavowed that bunch on Friday but they keep asking the same stupid questions over and over. When Jeff Sessions endorses him in Alabama tonight, which btw is one of the most consistent conservatives alive IMO, it will really turn up the heat on everyone. Lol
Yep, I heard him do that too. Some goof asked about David Duke endorsing him and he said "I disavow, okay?"
The last few days Rubio has been declaring that he "will not allow the party of Lincoln and Reagan to be taken over by a con artist."
Trump or his handlers have so far failed to fire the golden BB in not going after Rubio for his zealous advocacy for a Con con. When the door shuts behind a bunch of legislators who plan to change the US Constitution, it's a very big deal. There will be Democrats, which are nothing more than progressive/liberals, and Republicans there alike. And they will not be coming back out until all are satisfied. There is no filibuster or mechanism to stop that runaway locomotive once it gets started. No matter what happens, when those doors open back up, it will be to a brave new world.
I saw an article today in which it was stated that "Trump threatens to bludgeon his way to the nomination." Absolutely not true. The people are not in a fit of blind rage or anger. They are fed up with being taken advantage of by the establishment, who BTW are Trump's main critics. Imagine that, the very ones "we the people" are voting to push aside are going through all these fake death throes to get us to reconsider. But I guarantee one thing. If somehow Hillary gets elected, blind rage and anger will be the fate of all lucid minded tax paying citizens.
I heard the reporter ask him in real time about David Duke when it first happened. I heard him disavow immediately, and I have heard him do it again in unequivocable terms. He has disavowed David Duke and the KKK now several times.
Trump needs to declare that the party of Lincoln and Reagan will not allow a 5' 8" Con-con artist, with ears that account for 30% of his BMI, to become President of the United States.
The fact that the media from both sides try to play on something so stupid as the KKK is hilarious.
One of these days they'll learn.
TheRealThing Wrote:I heard the reporter ask him in real time about David Duke when it first happened. I heard him disavow immediately, and I have heard him do it again in unequivocable terms. He has disavowed David Duke and the KKK now several times..
I thought he said he'd have to do some research on who Duke and his organization was before saying he didn't want their vote? Then later blamed it on an earpiece? What about Donald Trump Jr. going on a radio show Tuesday with a well known white supremacist?
http://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-jr-ap...36607.html
RunItUpTheGut Wrote:The fact that the media from both sides try to play on something so stupid as the KKK is hilarious.
What are they trying to play? The KKK has thrown their support behind Donald Trump. It's worth mentioning, and not that comical.
David Duke never endorsed Trump in the first place. His own words not mine. The other thing that is funny is Trump has disavowed David Duke something like 20 times before Sunday. So yeah it is comical that the MSM is even talking about it...
Motley Wrote:I thought he said he'd have to do some research on who Duke and his organization was before saying he didn't want their vote? Then later blamed it on an earpiece? What about Donald Trump Jr. going on a radio show Tuesday with a well known white supremacist?
http://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-jr-ap...36607.html
What are they trying to play? The KKK has thrown their support behind Donald Trump. It's worth mentioning, and not that comical.
What is proven though, is Hillary praises Robert Byrd who in fact is a well known Klansman, but hey no one wants to discuss that. LOL
Demarcus ware Wrote:What is proven though, is Hillary praises Robert Byrd who in fact is a well known Klansman, but hey no one wants to discuss that. LOL
Robert Byrd was a white supremacist, and then was not. To my knowledge, David Duke is still a white supremacist. I think that matters. I think Donald Trump is being totally undercut by Establishment Republicanism, but telling truth at a slant (Byrd renounced the Klan and owned his past and his present) does a disservice to rigorous debate.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:Robert Byrd was a white supremacist, and then was not. To my knowledge, David Duke is still a white supremacist. I think that matters. I think Donald Trump is being totally undercut by Establishment Republicanism, but telling truth at a slant (Byrd renounced the Klan and owned his past and his present) does a disservice to rigorous debate.
You mean like the Liberals have done over the David Duke endorsement that never even happened? LOL
That's the thing, Hillary loves her some White supremacist Robert Byrd, But Trump has never had dealings with David Duke, yet that's what the liberals harp on for 3 days. LOL
Demarcus ware Wrote:You mean like the Liberals have done over the David Duke endorsement that never even happened? LOL
That's the thing, Hillary loves her some White supremacist Robert Byrd, But Trump has never had dealings with David Duke, yet that's what the liberals harp on for 3 days. LOL
Again, I do NOT think Donald Trump is a racist. However, by the time Hillary Clinton would have been "loving her some Robert Byrd," the then Senator from West Virginia had long since put the KKK and it's stances in his rearview mirror. I think Trump should have simply said to CNN "I do not want or need David Duke's endorsement." Even if the whole earpiece thing is true, it sounds like bs. Both liberals and conservatives tell the truth at a slant, and it does a disservice to honest debate.
Demarcus ware Wrote:You mean like the Liberals have done over the David Duke endorsement that never even happened? LOL
Although not a formal endorsement, you are absolutely kidding yourself if you don't think these quotes from David Duke are an endorsement.
"Voting against Donald Trump is treason to your heritage"
"I do support his candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action. I hope he does everything we hope he will do.â
"Call Donald Trump's headquarters, theyâre screaming for volunteers. Go in there,
youâre gonna meet people who are going to have the same kind of mind-set that you have.â
Motley Wrote:I thought he said he'd have to do some research on who Duke and his organization was before saying he didn't want their vote? Then later blamed it on an earpiece? What about Donald Trump Jr. going on a radio show Tuesday with a well known white supremacist?
http://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-jr-ap...36607.html
What are they trying to play? The KKK has thrown their support behind Donald Trump. It's worth mentioning, and not that comical.
No the initial question was live during a question and answer exchange at a Trump press conference. I'm pretty sure it was RIUTG that commented he had seen that happen in real time too. And like I said, the reporter's words were literally still hanging in the air when Trump said "I disavow, okay?" I'm not concerned that any of our Republican candidates have or would align themselves with NAZI's or the KKK. That doesn't stop idiot reporters from asking stupid stuff like this and then try to make something of it though.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:Robert Byrd was a white supremacist, and then was not. To my knowledge, David Duke is still a white supremacist. I think that matters. I think Donald Trump is being totally undercut by Establishment Republicanism, but telling truth at a slant (Byrd renounced the Klan and owned his past and his present) does a disservice to rigorous debate.
Actually I think the bigger deal here is that Byrd was a Democrat and got a pass for his checkered past because of that one fact.
Motley Wrote:Although not a formal endorsement, you are absolutely kidding yourself if you don't think these quotes from David Duke are an endorsement.
"Voting against Donald Trump is treason to your heritage"
"I do support his candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action. I hope he does everything we hope he will do.”
"Call Donald Trump's headquarters, they’re screaming for volunteers. Go in there, you’re gonna meet people who are going to have the same kind of mind-set that you have.”
I got a different perspective on that. On a scale of 100, Duke's opinion on anything comes in at like -800. Who cares what he says, or what he thinks? In my view it takes an idiot to put a mic in front of an idiot, much less think that anybody would actually think what's said is worth using in an attempt to condemn a viable Presidential candidate.
TheRealThing Wrote:Actually I think the bigger deal here is that Byrd was a Democrat and got a pass for his checkered past because of that one fact.
Eh, I don't want to get in a big thing defending Robert Byrd. Ever seen the 1996 (I think) interview when he is talking about progress in race relations and mentions that there are "white niggers" about three times? Pretty funny. He was most likely senile his last several years in the Senate.
The funniest part of this is that you democratic liberals think you have the balls on you to make any statement about racism, segregation, and hate groups.
IT WAS YOUR PARTY THAT FOUNDED ALL OF IT.
You are the keepers of hate. You are the party of segregation. You are the party of misleading evil people.
Byrd was still a part of your socialist movement until a few years ago. The only difference is you went from hating anything non white to everything about a straight white male. I give you democrats credit for one thing. Your disgusting hate and lies to minorities have no bounds. You are full force right in front of your lowly educated and liberal educated Muppets.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:Eh, I don't want to get in a big thing defending Robert Byrd. Ever seen the 1996 (I think) interview when he is talking about progress in race relations and mentions that there are "white niggers" about three times? Pretty funny. He was most likely senile his last several years in the Senate.
Sure, I can understand that. Imagine though, what sort of fire storm Trump would be facing right now if he had used the term white niggers even once. We'd be drowning in rehash for the next solid week.
If I was Donald, tonight when little Rubio takes off laying out the story of his humble origin, and bragging about his Dad tending bar for a living, I'd just have to ask Rubio where he ever worked? Word has it that he has never actually held a job.
Rubio has certainly taken it to the Don for his work record, but at least he has one for the ages.
RunItUpTheGut Wrote:The funniest part of this is that you democratic liberals think you have the balls on you to make any statement about racism, segregation, and hate groups.
IT WAS YOUR PARTY THAT FOUNDED ALL OF IT.
You are the keepers of hate. You are the party of segregation. You are the party of misleading evil people.
Byrd was still a part of your socialist movement until a few years ago. The only difference is you went from hating anything non white to everything about a straight white male. I give you democrats credit for one thing. Your disgusting hate and lies to minorities have no bounds. You are full force right in front of your lowly educated and liberal educated Muppets.
C'mon you know that the parties did a transition and switched to an extreme degree in the 20th century, especially during the southern realignment in 1964. To say that Lincoln or T. Roosevelt would be Republicans today is comical. That being side both sides have racists, it's not a particular party problem.
And both sides are also lowly educated as well, but to call liberals lowly educated as a generalization is pretty funny. The most highly educated Americans vote Democratic. Trump's rise has been catering almost exclusively to the lowly educated of America.
Motley Wrote:C'mon you know that the parties did a transition and switched to an extreme degree in the 20th century, especially during the southern realignment in 1964. To say that Lincoln or T. Roosevelt would be Republicans today is comical. That being side both sides have racists, it's not a particular party problem.
And both sides are also lowly educated as well, but to call liberals lowly educated as a generalization is pretty funny. The most highly educated Americans vote Democratic. Trump's rise has been catering almost exclusively to the lowly educated of America.
Democrats these days are just liberal progressive. They abandoned the reasonable applications of governance which were the example of those gone on before, for today's preachy secularism. And their sermon is about the same old thing year after year, social justice. They think mankind are in the midst of evolving towards perfection. To believe that requires them to ignore certain obvious things, like the fact that centuries ago the warlike Arab World were trying to convert or kill the infidel and the Jew. The next time they fly a passenger jet through a sky scraper may serve to remind us of the fact that they, and man in general, have not changed at all.
Republicans have been slow to follow their lead and there seems to be hope that sanity still has it's place in a few of the candidates, and
some of those presently in Congress.
Ever been around any of those uber educated Democrats you mention Motley? I sincerely doubt it. I was around them for several years because someone I knew was in college and was engaged to one of their sons. Without going into it in depth, these people are both goofy and superficial. There is a divide between educated and smart, I can assure you of that.
One more thing. Your comment that Trump only appeals to the lowly educated is every bit as off-the-wall as anything Run may have said. Your generalizations took certain liberties with accuracy too.
TheRealThing Wrote:Ever been around any of those uber educated Democrats you mention Motley? I sincerely doubt it. I was around them for several years because someone I knew was in college and was engaged to one of their sons. Without going into it in depth, these people are both goofy and superficial. There is a divide between educated and smart, I can assure you of that.
Both sides have their smart ones and dumb ones. At least I like to think so. Anything beyond this argument will be opinion.
One more thing.
Your comment that Trump only appeals to the lowly educated is every bit as off-the-wall as anything Run may have said. Your generalizations took certain liberties with accuracy too.[/QUOTE]
Originally it looked so, but you're right it has recently changed a bit. My generalization was wrong. Although I will stick to saying that uneducated voters do back up the backbone of his campaign. Maybe you're right after all. Educated doesn't necessarily mean smart. Especially when it comes to this election.
Motley Wrote:Both sides have their smart ones and dumb ones. At least I like to think so. Anything beyond this argument will be opinion.
One more thing. Your comment that Trump only appeals to the lowly educated is every bit as off-the-wall as anything Run may have said. Your generalizations took certain liberties with accuracy too.
Originally it looked so, but you're right it has recently changed a bit. My generalization was wrong. Although I will stick to saying that uneducated voters do back up the backbone of his campaign. Maybe you're right after all. Educated doesn't necessarily mean smart. Especially when it comes to this election.[/QUOTE]
Or possibly people are in fact, much smarter in many cases than they are given credit for. And given that over the course of the past several decades, a comparison of what they have been told by politicians and media, with what they know to be the truth does not jibe, maybe they have thrown up their hands and decided to go a different route.
Honesty, the way things haves been going at the debates and on the Republican campaign trail, has been unfortunate. Ted Cruz should not be on national TV speaking in despicably condescending tones to Trump. He cannot claim the high ground if he chooses to fight the battle in the swamp. Rubio decided to go there out of desperation, and supportive establishment types worried about their continued power and finance have spurred him on. I could care less about him. But Ted needs to take the conversation from the playground to big boy politics and let Rubio grow up on his own. So, Ted needs to snap out of it and realize that the establishment are certainly no friend of his. Why is he doing their dirty work and at the same time making Republicans look even more stupid that Harry Reid and Barack Obama have been saying they are? He's supposed to be some kind of genius last I heard.
The people will make the right choice. The problem isn't the poorly educated in my opinion. It is the lowly aspirations of voters, which are the inescapable by-products of the gutter born aspersions of racially charged and minority based biases that Dems love to use to their advantage every election cycle going back to the days of Jimmy Carter. That's when Democrats did their magic pivot away from the George Wallace's and Robert C Byrd's of their own conference. We don't talk about such things these days, but I remember it none the less.