Indiana-born judge Gonzalo Curiel stands for something special and unique about the United States. Donald Trump's "he's a Mexican guy using his position to stick it to me" is lowest common denominator crap in high relief. I don't doubt that Donald Trump has a chance to win the presidency. But, he really needs to listen to his own party's leaders at times. This kind of stuff is dregs of human nature turf.
Trump's statements about judge Gonzalo Curiel have led us to both good and bad results. Said statements caused many pundits and other interested people to vet the judge. It seems he is a member of at least 4 Hispanic activist groups. Judges are not supposed to ally themselves with such organizations because that sort of thing flies in the face of the concept of assimilation to this culture, but more importantly because justice under American law is supposed to be blind to anything except the facts, and accepted as preeminent among those facts as stipulated by the Constitution is that "all men are created equal." The judge may have grown up straight and tall in Indiana, but such alignments and maybe some issues of which we are not yet aware have given rise to concerns of bias by the Trump legal team. If the judge (a high level judge by any measurement) truly wants to give the impression of neutrality he shouldn't be an activist.
Federal and state level carve-outs for special interest groups have nowadays become epic in scope. Billions of US tax dollars are allocated specifically for minorities, illegal immigrants, and all sorts of ideological concerns. Not to mention the fact that if recent riots and the resultant DOJ investigations are any indication, laws that would seem as unforgiving as the granite face of Mount Rushmore to the Caucasian majority of this nation's populace, do not in fact apply to minorities, even those here illegally.
US Supreme Court Justice Sonja Sotomayor, had to spend much of her confirmation hearings backing up from one of her oft quoted speech statements in which she compared herself to her white contemporaries; "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."
So, let's not allow the pendulum to swing too wildly to the left or the right in making assumptions in which Mr Trump's political death are greatly exaggerated. In any case, it is incredible to me that last week's damning IG report on Mrs Clinton's handling of sensitive information while in service to this nation as Secretary of State barely gets a mention while things that highlight Trump in a negative light are the stuff of the news loop.
However, though I may understand where Trump could feel a measure of exasperation with the Trump University Case. Were it I in his shoes and in light of the potential tsunami of litigation coming to bear on Hillary, I'd never have brought up such a small issue. Still, that does not excuse Newt Gingrich's role in fanning the sparks of this particular controversy into a full blown fire storm. Neither does it warrant fellow Republicans the dog piling of their own nominee. It has served however, to exemplify the magnitude of the divide between the common sense concerns of 'the people,' and the blathersphere political prioritizing of the establishment. Grannybear asked recently if military service ought not be a qualifying prerequisite to become a party nominee. I would wholeheartedly support it, that and/or a demonstrable record of accomplishment in the US marketplace. While at the same time, silver spoon-fed college grads should be denied an opportunity under any conditions henceforth.
Trump uses things like this in his favor, IMO. You would think one would be disappointed in negative media coverage, but in this case I believe this is all part of Donald Trump's plan in winning the election.
I'll use an example here. Two days before one of the primary elections, Trump was asked about receiving the endorsement of David Duke in an interview. He dodged the topic of David Duke and stated that he knew nothing about him. He refused to denounce David Duke, although he did so after he won that primary.
Naturally, media pounced all over that which resulted in a boatload of free coverage in the final two days leading to that primary. Trump has used this strategy throughout his whole campaign. Say something completely outlandish that media outlets will pounce on, and force them to provide hours of coverage talking about him. He may act as if it's bad that he is being covered this way, but I believe that deep down he is enjoying this and using it to his advantage. It doesn't matter whether it's good or bad, all he wants is some kind of publicity. Then when the outlets usually show some kind of link to his Twitter page where people will go, he will call out their bias. It has worked like a charm for him so far. I expect that he will have many more statements like this as the campaign goes on.
WideRight05 Wrote:Trump uses things like this in his favor, IMO. You would think one would be disappointed in negative media coverage, but in this case I believe this is all part of Donald Trump's plan in winning the election.
I'll use an example here. Two days before one of the primary elections, Trump was asked about receiving the endorsement of David Duke in an interview. He dodged the topic of David Duke and stated that he knew nothing about him. He refused to denounce David Duke, although he did so after he won that primary.
Naturally, media pounced all over that which resulted in a boatload of free coverage in the final two days leading to that primary. Trump has used this strategy throughout his whole campaign. Say something completely outlandish that media outlets will pounce on, and force them to provide hours of coverage talking about him. He may act as if it's bad that he is being covered this way, but I believe that deep down he is enjoying this and using it to his advantage. It doesn't matter whether it's good or bad, all he wants is some kind of publicity. Then when the outlets usually show some kind of link to his Twitter page where people will go, he will call out their bias. It has worked like a charm for him so far. I expect that he will have many more statements like this as the campaign goes on.
Fair enough, here is the timeline with regard to that whole deal as published by the Washington Examiner.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald...le/2584511
Feb. 25, Duke announces on his radio show that he will vote for Trump though he does not formally endorse him.
Feb. 26, Governor Chris Christie endorses Trump at a news conference. At that same conference a reporter informs Trump of the David Duke endorsement. "I didn't even know he endorsed me," Trump said. "David Duke endorsed me? Okay. I disavow, okay? I disavow."
Feb. 28, CNN's Jake Tapper brings up the David Duke endorsement on CNN's "State of the Union." Despite having disavowed Duke on Friday, Trump doesn't reiterate the disavowal. Instead, he claims he's never heard of David Duke. "I don't know anything about David Duke. I don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists."
Notice how the reporter says that Trump is now saying that he's never even heard of David Duke? Trump never said anything of the kind, he said he didn't know anything about David Duke, which is different from saying he hadn't ever heard of him.
Feb. 29, Bill O'Reilly declares the whole thing bogus.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/02/2...non-story/
For weeks after, the story just would not die.
WideRight05 Wrote:Trump uses things like this in his favor, IMO. You would think one would be disappointed in negative media coverage, but in this case I believe this is all part of Donald Trump's plan in winning the election.
I'll use an example here. Two days before one of the primary elections, Trump was asked about receiving the endorsement of David Duke in an interview. He dodged the topic of David Duke and stated that he knew nothing about him. He refused to denounce David Duke, although he did so after he won that primary.
Naturally, media pounced all over that which resulted in a boatload of free coverage in the final two days leading to that primary. Trump has used this strategy throughout his whole campaign. Say something completely outlandish that media outlets will pounce on, and force them to provide hours of coverage talking about him. He may act as if it's bad that he is being covered this way, but I believe that deep down he is enjoying this and using it to his advantage. It doesn't matter whether it's good or bad, all he wants is some kind of publicity. Then when the outlets usually show some kind of link to his Twitter page where people will go, he will call out their bias. It has worked like a charm for him so far. I expect that he will have many more statements like this as the campaign goes on.
This will work in his favor as well.
Its really simple, Mexicans shouldn't be voting in an American presidential election anyways, although im sure the Dems will find some who will.
Now Mexican Americans with actual citizenship who hate Trump already hated Trump wont vote for him anyways. He sure as hell isn't losing votes by anything hes saying. The best thing possible is for all the people to keep seeing those thugs burning flags and attacking Trump supporters while waving there ugly green Mexican flag and he will pick up more votes.
Its obvious he knows how to play the game, and right now, he owns the game and the media.
Judge Curiel, as a federal prosecutor, drew assasination threats from Mexican drug cartels, threats so serious he was located to Naval bases for protection. I think efforts to throw shade at him are lowest common denominator crap. Period.
^^ So, we can put you down as a definite Hillary vote then?
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:Judge Curiel, as a federal prosecutor, drew assasination threats from Mexican drug cartels, threats so serious he was located to Naval bases for protection. I think efforts to throw shade at him are lowest common denominator crap. Period.
Now that some info is coming out about the judge and his ties with The Hispanic National Bar Association, which has vowed to target Trumps business interest by boycotting, this judge may end up on the hot seat. This will give the appearance of impartiality by the judge, he should have recused himself. Gonna get interesting now.
^^ I said Trump's enemies would keep trying to bring him down until they eventually step all over themselves in their zeal to that end by publishing a story that can be disproven, which will have the effect of rendering all the dirt that they may try to throw at him from that point on meaningless.
I've heard rumblings from a few places saying that the very same establishment which made a huge deal of Sheldon Adelson's offer to donate 100 million to a super pac for Trump, themselves offered 200 million to the Trump campaign if he named a certain politician of renown his VP running mate. I stress, that is not proven or vetted that I know of at this point, so no one should take that as factual just yet.
"He should have recused himself."
Does Judge Cariel set the agenda for the HNBA?
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:"He should have recused himself."
Does Judge Cariel set the agenda for the HNBA?
Did Heinrich Himmler set the agenda for the 3rd Reich?
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:"He should have recused himself."
Does Judge Cariel set the agenda for the HNBA?
Doesn't matter. He is associated with that. He knew they were boycotting Trump.
It does matter. The controlling question of the class action suit has nothing to do with anything that would have rendered Judge Cariel unfit to preside in the case. Also, the facts of this case will prove inconsequential in whether or not Trump wins the Presidency, unless HE keeps digging in it and talking about it.
TheRealThing Wrote:Did Heinrich Himmler set the agenda for the 3rd Reich?
Let's see: boycott Trump after his "Mexicans are rapists" lingo vs. exterminate an entire race of people ....
Is it your position, then, that a position taken by the HNBA, of necessity, renders Judge Cariel biased and unable to rule impartially in the matter of Trump University?
TheRealThing Wrote:Did Heinrich Himmler set the agenda for the 3rd Reich?
Is it your position that to let the case go forward, to allow documents into the record that demonstrate fraud, etc... demonstrates bias? Pretty standard stuff in a lawsuit.
Raising objections to a judge based on associations or the correctness of his rulings is valid. Calling a natural born American citizen a "Mexican" repeatedly and claiming that the judge should have recused himself from the Trump University case on the basis that he is a Mexican was a stupid thing to do politically and Hispanics, including Hispanic Republicans who interpret Trump's statement as racist are correct.
Despite desperately needing to expand his support among Hispanic and black voters, within a two day period, he attacked the Hispanic Governor of New Mexico, called the American judge handling the Trump U. case a Mexican, and referred to a black American attending one of his rallies as "my African American." Anyone who thinks that this kind of publicity is helping Trump's campaign is just fooling themselves.
Also, the judge already granted a partial summary judgment to Trump. His claim that the judge should have granted a full summary judgment is just political theatrics. Summary judgments are fairly rare and are only granted when the evidence is overwhelming and the judge determines that there is no factual dispute between the parties. The lawsuit alleges that Trump University did not deliver the quality of service that was promised student. With between 25 and 40 percent of students having received refunds, there is obviously a factual dispute between the claimants who did not receive refunds and Trump. Trump's claim of 98 percent satisfaction is just a flat out lie. Trump was asked about the 25 percent refund rate during a deposition and compared it to the refund rate of the Home Shopping Network, so he knows that the 98 percent satisfaction rate that he claims publicly is pure fiction.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:"He should have recused himself."
Does Judge Cariel set the agenda for the HNBA?
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:Let's see: boycott Trump after his "Mexicans are rapists" lingo vs. exterminate an entire race of people ....
Is it your position, then, that a position taken by the HNBA, of necessity, renders Judge Cariel biased and unable to rule impartially in the matter of Trump University?
You're the guy who suggested the good judge could be a member of 4 activist organizations and still retain the aura of neutrality. One in particular on record vowing to boycott anything associated with Mr Trump. I just pointed out that that type of DNC-esque driven nonsense would not fly with most folks. It is irrational to think someone would join an activist organization if he did not identify with their cause. I'm not attempting to speak for the judge and his intentions, but there are reasons and guidelines long established for them to avoid such charges of bias.
And you're generalizing of course, when you try to make specific comments made by Mr Trump applicable to an entire race. There are indeed rapists, drug addicts, the sick, drug dealers, gang members, pregnant girls/women, the hopelessly uneducated, and generally violent or otherwise prone to break the law coming across our border. But though
he never suggested that they were all criminals, I and the millions of realists in this land know that a great number of them have come to become wards of the state, and expect US taxpayers to feed, house and educate them free of charge. And, while paying upwards of a thousand dollars a month for health insurance that basically pays for nada BTW, (pun intended) while illegals will now be extended ObamaCare and guess who pays for that?
My position was clearly stated. The judge should not be an activist if he wants to avoid criticism or charges of bias in his rulings. Not exactly rocket science, and widely accepted as being juris-prudent.
This is the point of the race where we begin to find out if the left really has the wherewithal to keep Republicans out of the White House.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Raising objections to a judge based on associations or the correctness of his rulings is valid. Calling a natural born American citizen a "Mexican" repeatedly and claiming that the judge should have recused himself from the Trump University case on the basis that he is a Mexican was a stupid thing to do politically and Hispanics, including Hispanic Republicans who interpret Trump's statement as racist are correct.
Despite desperately needing to expand his support among Hispanic and black voters, within a two day period, he attacked the Hispanic Governor of New Mexico, called the American judge handling the Trump U. case a Mexican, and referred to a black American attending one of his rallies as "my African American." Anyone who thinks that this kind of publicity is helping Trump's campaign is just fooling themselves.
Also, the judge already granted a partial summary judgment to Trump. His claim that the judge should have granted a full summary judgment is just political theatrics. Summary judgments are fairly rare and are only granted when the evidence is overwhelming and the judge determines that there is no factual dispute between the parties. The lawsuit alleges that Trump University did not deliver the quality of service that was promised student. With between 25 and 40 percent of students having received refunds, there is obviously a factual dispute between the claimants who did not receive refunds and Trump. Trump's claim of 98 percent satisfaction is just a flat out lie. Trump was asked about the 25 percent refund rate during a deposition and compared it to the refund rate of the Home Shopping Network, so he knows that the 98 percent satisfaction rate that he claims publicly is pure fiction.
Wow. Now that you've passed judgment do you think Trump should even attempt further litigation, or just let you formally submit your written decree? I mean, it's over.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Raising objections to a judge based on associations or the correctness of his rulings is valid. Calling a natural born American citizen a "Mexican" repeatedly and claiming that the judge should have recused himself from the Trump University case on the basis that he is a Mexican was a stupid thing to do politically and Hispanics, including Hispanic Republicans who interpret Trump's statement as racist are correct.
Despite desperately needing to expand his support among Hispanic and black voters, within a two day period, he attacked the Hispanic Governor of New Mexico, called the American judge handling the Trump U. case a Mexican, and referred to a black American attending one of his rallies as "my African American." Anyone who thinks that this kind of publicity is helping Trump's campaign is just fooling themselves.
Also, the judge already granted a partial summary judgment to Trump. His claim that the judge should have granted a full summary judgment is just political theatrics. Summary judgments are fairly rare and are only granted when the evidence is overwhelming and the judge determines that there is no factual dispute between the parties. The lawsuit alleges that Trump University did not deliver the quality of service that was promised student. With between 25 and 40 percent of students having received refunds, there is obviously a factual dispute between the claimants who did not receive refunds and Trump. Trump's claim of 98 percent satisfaction is just a flat out lie. Trump was asked about the 25 percent refund rate during a deposition and compared it to the refund rate of the Home Shopping Network, so he knows that the 98 percent satisfaction rate that he claims publicly is pure fiction.
Rock solid post
If Trump will show some discipline and stay on message, he's got a real shot in November I think. Focus on jobs and trade and immigration, and hammer away at the Clintons. Many on the left feel betrayed by Bill and Hillary, and a significant % of Bernie supporters might well stay home if Trump taps into that.
^^ The press is making a barn full of hay out of what Trump has said about Judge Cariel, and being that they are made up of either Trump foes, or those who worry Trump will say too much, I can understand it. However, starting next week when Trump begins to lay waste to what is left of the Clinton name, the comparisons between the two nominees will get brutal.
For example, FBN reported today that the multi million dollar contributions made by Uranium One will finally see the light of day at Trump's hand. The following is an old article, even more applicable details have since come out.
THE NEW YORK TIMES
EXCERPT---
"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cas....html?_r=0
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:If Trump will show some discipline and stay on message, he's got a real shot in November I think. Focus on jobs and trade and immigration, and hammer away at the Clintons. Many on the left feel betrayed by Bill and Hillary, and a significant % of Bernie supporters might well stay home if Trump taps into that.
If being disciplined and staying on message means in any way to become more politically correct, I surely hope he doesn't. That will just give Clinton a better shot. Yes, focus on jobs, trade and the sloth but remain abrasive.
If for any reason, anybody posting on this thread thought for one second they were being treated unfairly by a judge that was an activist for something you were actively being attacked by, you would absolutely say/think it in your home, to your lawyer and in your mind, even if you thought ethnicity had something to do with it. 99% of you just wouldn't say it in public. Trump will say it to the world and not blink an eye. For some reason I can respect that.
At no time did I think Trumps remarks implied that the judge could not do his job because he had Mexican parents or because he was not white. Did any of you really think he did??
The left has been crucifying white judges, prosecutors and lawyers for decades claiming racism and you say nothing???
People that know Clinton is a snake in the grass and should never be president but won't vote for Trump because he's not what they're used to, or think he's a fake, or for whatever reason they can come up with will be the very one's that put her in office...all the while knowing Trump would be the better. Vote the lesser of two evils folks. If you don't, it's a vote for Clinton.
^Hillary and Trump may be the worst two candidates the two major parties have ever nominated and they did so in the same year. As for Trump losing to Hillary, if that happens, people should not be so quick to hold Trump blameless. He is not running a smart campaign against Hillary.
The blame or credit for a Trump loss or victory will belong to Trump and those who are poised to hand him the GOP nomination. Nobody is obligated to unite behind any candidate. That is a test of leadership and so far, it is a test that Trump is failing.
TheRealThing Wrote:Fair enough, here is the timeline with regard to that whole deal as published by the Washington Examiner. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald...le/2584511
Feb. 25, Duke announces on his radio show that he will vote for Trump though he does not formally endorse him.
Feb. 26, Governor Chris Christie endorses Trump at a news conference. At that same conference a reporter informs Trump of the David Duke endorsement. "I didn't even know he endorsed me," Trump said. "David Duke endorsed me? Okay. I disavow, okay? I disavow."
Feb. 28, CNN's Jake Tapper brings up the David Duke endorsement on CNN's "State of the Union." Despite having disavowed Duke on Friday, Trump doesn't reiterate the disavowal. Instead, he claims he's never heard of David Duke. "I don't know anything about David Duke. I don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists."
Notice how the reporter says that Trump is now saying that he's never even heard of David Duke? Trump never said anything of the kind, he said he didn't know anything about David Duke, which is different from saying he hadn't ever heard of him.
Feb. 29, Bill O'Reilly declares the whole thing bogus. http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/02/2...non-story/
For weeks after, the story just would not die.
I don't doubt what you're posting, TRT, I was more referring to Trump using situations like these to garner media coverage for himself. Almost every politician prefers to have positive coverage and I'm sure that Trump does too, but like most that have been in Hollywood it doesn't bother him to receive negative publicity. Any free publicity to him, be it positive or negative, is good publicity.
Trump, I think, deliberately took the position he did in the CNN video to force media outlets to cover him more a couple days before an important primary vote. I agree with you that Trump was against the David Duke endorsement the entire time, but handling it the way he did resulted in additional coverage a couple days before the primary that normally would have been allotted to other candidates. Trump has been able to use situations like that to his advantage. He makes a statement or sometimes he is vague on an issue and media outlets eat it up. That's more of what I was meant in my prior post.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:^Hillary and Trump may be the worst two candidates the two major parties have ever nominated and they did so in the same year. As for Trump losing to Hillary, if that happens, people should not be so quick to hold Trump blameless. He is not running a smart campaign against Hillary.
The blame or credit for a Trump loss or victory will belong to Trump and those who are poised to hand him the GOP nomination. Nobody is obligated to unite behind any candidate. That is a test of leadership and so far, it is a test that Trump is failing.
Really? Yet again you demonstrate beyond doubt your inability to grasp the situation at hand. America operates domestically and on the foreign policy front according to the will of 'the people.' In this case, the people have responded in rising to fulfill that sacred duty of self governance. And because certain power brokers and mind manipulators have lost control of the hearts and minds of those voters, it seems that all the Erik Eriksons and Bill Kristols, along with the establishment media and political elites of both parties and of course you, want to do is cause as much damage to the process as possible. And why?
(The following sentence should be read in the context of a sniveling crybaby) Because you can't get your way, sniff. That's right, in this land which has celebrated moral correctness and the practical successes attached thereto of the concept of the common good for 3 centuries, (and that in the light of immeasurable sacrifice of those gone on), today's avant guarde all willing victims of PC who claim to love country the most, have become it's chief demolitionists. And of the nearly 15 million who have voted for Trump so far? Well obviously they are all misguided idiots or cultists. Never mind the fact that the vote disparity that existed between Romney and Obama has been more than made up for in this primary season with the addition of millions of new voters of which are directly attributable to Mr Trump's candidacy.
There is only one reason that Donald J. Trump is not walking away with this thing right now. The afore mentioned demolitionists have been engaged in the character assassination of the people's nominee for the past year. You should be particularly proud of your effort to that end as the hundreds of posts and who knows how many TWIT-ters you have put up in an attempt to cause the system to break down, will stand in testament for perpituity. Of course, though caustic enough, your comments pale in the face of the efforts of Karl Rove and Charlie Gasparino et-al. Therefore, because of all the evil and gossip and outrageous innuendo being put out there by no less than the Republican Party itself about their own nominee; Doubt, loathing, riots, fear and confusion have torpedoed this nation's attempt to heal it's own wounds.
None of you Trump opponents have a reasonable alternative to Mr Trump's candidacy. And just as notably, none of you will admit your efforts, if successful, will be solely responsible for resuscitating the Clinton campaign which even in today's dishonest media universe was dead. All that remained was the burial. Truth may yet prevail, as this time the voter, I believe, will not give in to the #demolitionist movement propaganda line.
TheRealThing Wrote:Really? Yet again you demonstrate beyond doubt your inability to grasp the situation at hand. America operates domestically and on the foreign policy front according to the will of 'the people.' In this case, the people have responded in rising to fulfill that sacred duty of self governance. And because certain power brokers and mind manipulators have lost control of the hearts and minds of those voters, it seems that all the Erik Eriksons and Bill Kristols, along with the establishment media and political elites of both parties and of course you, want to do is cause as much damage to the process as possible. And why? (The following sentence should be read in the context of a sniveling crybaby) Because you can't get your way, sniff. That's right, in this land which has celebrated moral correctness and the practical successes attached thereto of the concept of the common good for 3 centuries, (and that in the light of immeasurable sacrifice of those gone on), today's avant guarde all willing victims of PC who claim to love it the most, have become it's chief demolitionists. And of the nearly 15 million who have voted for Trump so far? Well obviously they are all misguided idiots or cultists. Never mind the fact that the vote disparity that existed between Romney and Obama has been more than made up for in this primary season with the addition of millions of new voters of which are directly attributable to Mr Trump's candidacy.
There is only one reason that Donald J. Trump is not walking away with this thing right now. The afore mentioned demolitionists have been engaged in the character assassination of the people's nominee for the past year. You should be particularly proud of your effort to that end as the hundreds of posts and who knows how many TWIT-ters you have put up in an attempt to cause the system to break down, will stand in testament for perpituity. Of course, though caustic enough, your comments pale in the face of the efforts of Karl Rove and Charlie Gasparino et-al. Therefore, because of all the evil and gossip and outrageous innuendo being put out there by no less than the Republican Party itself about their own nominee; Doubt, loathing, riots, fear and confusion have torpedoed this nation's attempt to heal it's own wounds.
None of you Trump opponents have a reasonable alternative to Mr Trump's candidacy. And just as notably, none of you will admit your efforts, if successful, will be solely responsible for resuscitating the Clinton campaign which even in today's dishonest media universe was dead. All that remained was the burial. Truth may yet prevail, as this time the voter, I believe, will not give in to the #demolitionist movement.
I am sure that your nasty disposition and insults are going to win many converts to the Trump camp. What a loser.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:^Hillary and Trump may be the worst two candidates the two major parties have ever nominated and they did so in the same year. As for Trump losing to Hillary, if that happens, people should not be so quick to hold Trump blameless. He is not running a smart campaign against Hillary.
The blame or credit for a Trump loss or victory will belong to Trump and those who are poised to hand him the GOP nomination. Nobody is obligated to unite behind any candidate. That is a test of leadership and so far, it is a test that Trump is failing.
I have always, and will alwways vote for POTUS. I will never cast a useless/protest vote for a third party candidate that has zero chance in winning. If it were Obama vs Clinton in this upcoming election I would gladly cast one for Barry.
I have a 21 year old son that is still green as grass, I would vote for him before I would vote for Clinton...he would be less damaging IMO. I would vote for Trump over my son cause I feel he'd be the best of the two.
Outside of something extraordinary, one of two people will be the next president, Trump or Clinton. I fully understand that we have the right to vote for anyone we choose. If voters choose not to vote, or vote for a third party candidate that's their business and i respect that. IT IS MY PERSONAL OPINION that if you choose to not vote for Trump, you are In a sense enabling Clinton. If you choose not to vote for Clinton, you are enabling Trump.
I'm just an old hillbilly and think its our duty to vote for whichever one we think is best. I say fish or cut bait.
TheRealThing Wrote:Really? Yet again you demonstrate beyond doubt your inability to grasp the situation at hand. America operates domestically and on the foreign policy front according to the will of 'the people.' In this case, the people have responded in rising to fulfill that sacred duty of self governance. And because certain power brokers and mind manipulators have lost control of the hearts and minds of those voters, it seems that all the Erik Eriksons and Bill Kristols, along with the establishment media and political elites of both parties and of course you, want to do is cause as much damage to the process as possible. And why? (The following sentence should be read in the context of a sniveling crybaby) Because you can't get your way, sniff. That's right, in this land which has celebrated moral correctness and the practical successes attached thereto of the concept of the common good for 3 centuries, (and that in the light of immeasurable sacrifice of those gone on), today's avant guarde all willing victims of PC who claim to love country the most, have become it's chief demolitionists. And of the nearly 15 million who have voted for Trump so far? Well obviously they are all misguided idiots or cultists. Never mind the fact that the vote disparity that existed between Romney and Obama has been more than made up for in this primary season with the addition of millions of new voters of which are directly attributable to Mr Trump's candidacy.
There is only one reason that Donald J. Trump is not walking away with this thing right now. The afore mentioned demolitionists have been engaged in the character assassination of the people's nominee for the past year. You should be particularly proud of your effort to that end as the hundreds of posts and who knows how many TWIT-ters you have put up in an attempt to cause the system to break down, will stand in testament for perpituity. Of course, though caustic enough, your comments pale in the face of the efforts of Karl Rove and Charlie Gasparino et-al. Therefore, because of all the evil and gossip and outrageous innuendo being put out there by no less than the Republican Party itself about their own nominee; Doubt, loathing, riots, fear and confusion have torpedoed this nation's attempt to heal it's own wounds.
None of you Trump opponents have a reasonable alternative to Mr Trump's candidacy. And just as notably, none of you will admit your efforts, if successful, will be solely responsible for resuscitating the Clinton campaign which even in today's dishonest media universe was dead. All that remained was the burial. Truth may yet prevail, as this time the voter, I believe, will not give in to the #demolitionist movement propaganda line.
Those two alone have made for a lot of comedy on Twitter and in the country in general. The big announcement for David French turned out to be a joke and should have been an embarrassment for Bill Kristol, but when you are that desperate there is no shame to his game i suppose. LOL
Demarcus ware Wrote:Those two alone have made for a lot of comedy on Twitter and in the country in general. The big announcement for David French turned out to be a joke and should have been an embarrassment for Bill Kristol, but when you are that desperate there is no shame to his game i suppose. LOL
I'm quoting Demarcus, but I congratulate SKINNYPIG for his fundamental awareness and sense of civic duty. I mean, one might as well vote for Daffy Duck as go 3rd party in these times. A vote cast for Gary Johnson or a David French is a vote flushed. In the past such votes would not have been considered necessarily unpatriotic because though we were off the path, that path was still clearly visible and seemingly easily re-accessible. However we are far from that point today, with sovereignty and possibly even national survival presently at stake, I believe such an action has become more likely an act bordering treason for those who truly understand the times.
Kristol, Erikson and all the rest of the #NeverTrump crowd
are desperate. And what a come down they have suffered as this time last year they were at the top of the media food chain, in fact. Then the primary season began and the voters spoke, putting them all back into their proper places. And what has been their response? Double down on their err and pass judgment on those voters. I cited Bill Flores ® TX in a post on here only yesterday. Flores, a junior Congressman himself, has a world of advice it seems for Mr Trump. In another example I have heard an argument made on behalf of Judge Curiel recently, which stated that once that judicial robe is donned, the power and dignity it implies causes all malice and biases to be discarded by the Judge, who more times than not rules with that iconic blindfold correctly positioned. However, my observations have run contrary to that impression. Take Barack Obama for example, it didn't take junior long to begin lecturing the planet on the subject of the day did it? And then we have Bill Flores who having the trappings of the Congress as his backdrop, makes an impassioned plea for Trump to be more like himself. :please:
While the self absorbed struggle to regain relevancy or think their specialness vests them with relevancy, 'the people' struggle to save the republic.
⬆⬆ Wasn't one of the fundamental understandings of the Framers that "the people" also needed their power to be held in check?