That’s it. I support Trump UPDATED

Loading

trump supporter injured

 

I have officially had enough of this sh*t.  Deport the bastards. All of them.

It’s one thing to disagree with candidates. It’s another to protest. Rioting is over the top.  Hurting people is beyond the pale.

Police clashed with hundreds of protesters outside Donald Trump’s rally in Southern California on Thursday night.

At least one police car was smashed up as hundreds of demonstrators – many of them waving Mexican flags – took to the streets outside the Pacific Amphitheater in Costa Mesa, Orange County where Trump was speaking.

The protesters flooded the street outside the amphitheater with some stomping on cars, hurling rocks at motorists and forcefully declaring their opposition to Trump – bringing traffic to a halt and creating a tense standoff with authorities.

One Trump supporter was pictured with a bloody face after clashing with the anti-Trump activists, many of whom appeared to be young Hispanic people.

The violence in Southern California where Latinos make up a large segment of the population suggests Trump may face more of this in the days to come, as he campaigns ahead of the state’s June 7 primary. Trump currently leads Kasich and Cruz in the California polls, with an estimated 45.7 per cent of voters, according to Real Clear Politics.

The goddam mainstream media is downplaying the violence, dismissing it as “protests.”

Just imagine for a moment the shrieking outrage if Trump supporters had tried to flip a car outside a Hillary Clinton rally. Imagine the fury at the sight of a bloody man wearing a Hillary shirt. So how did the mainstream media cover the anti-Trump riot? Hot Air’s Larry O’Connor has the details:

Check out the LA Times headline: Protests rage outside Trump rally in Orange County; 17 arrested, police car smashed. Maybe it’s me, but if your headline includes the phrase: “police car smashed,” perhaps you should go ahead and call it a riot and not the benign and righteous sounding “protest.” The Times write-up of the ugly violence begins with more apologetic language: “Hundreds of demonstrators filled the street outside the Orange County amphitheater where Donald Trump held a rally Thursday night…” “Demonstrators”??? This is a very deliberate use of language. When you have a righteous cause, you’re a “demonstrator.” The Times is using language equating these thugs with someone marching in Selma. “Demonstrators” sounds heroic.

The Washington Post used the morally-neutral term “clashed.” Trump protesters clashed with police officers here after a campaign rally Thursday hosted by the Republican presidential candidate.

 

This is not a damn “protest.” It’s a riot:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdpmJsPhJck[/youtube]

 

Trump supporters are being injured:

 

 

As if that’s not enough, these dirtbags are making clear where their loyalties lie:

 

 

images courtesy of the LA Times and the Daily Mail

These events are going to make campaign fodder for Trump. They validate everything he says. How dare these illegal alien nematodes attempt to deny Trump and other their right to free speech? What the freaking hell is wrong with the left? How would it be received and reported were attendees to a Hillary rally attacked and injured? How would it be reported if Hillary was rushed and denied entry to a campaign event?

And those flags? They’re going to suck up the benefits and privileges offered by this country and then shove this in our faces?

 

I don’t think so. ¡Fuera de mi país!

Trump is a jerk, but damn it, this makes clear he’s right. This garbage is going to make Trump the next President. It’s not the left being denied their rights. It’s not Hillary being jeopardized. The left is behind all of the violence, illegal and legal. If they think violence and intimidation is going to succeed, they’re yugely mistaken.

It has to stop. Trump is the guy to do it.

Felicitanos, culos. You’ve made another Trump convert.

 

UPDATE

 

Get. Out.

UPDATE II

https://twitter.com/_R1ghtW1ng9O2IO/status/726152925534248960?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

via Breitbart

And hey, let’s watch those peaceful anti-Trumpers rough up a supporter


 

 

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
222 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Richard Wheeler:

I’ll write in Mattis or Wordsmith before I’d vote for Clinton or Trump.

You’re in the tank for Shrillary.

@retire05:

who actually has read the Constitution, understands its meaning and will adhere to its principals.

well, except that that teeny weeny little thing about being a ‘natural born citizen’ to be president. He is willing to overlook that for some reason. Another non starter is his wife being a member of the CFR and supporting the activities to make the US, Canada and Mexico one country. How can he and his wife differ on that?

@john: you must be driving your solar powered car and breathing the fumes.

I have a class A cdl I burn a lot more fuel than you
Say what do you think about those polls I linked for you ?
Rassmusen was also the only pollster who had 22% undecided

@Redteam:

well, except that that teeny weeny little thing about being a ‘natural born citizen’ to be president. He is willing to overlook that for some reason.

Give it up, Redteam. More than one federal judge has disagreed with you.

Another non starter is his wife being a member of the CFR and supporting the activities to make the US, Canada and Mexico one country. How can he and his wife differ on that?

Really? And Heidy Cruz was listed as being a fellow for the CFR when?

Know who Carter Page is, Redteam? No? He’s one of Trump’s foreign policy advisors. You know, an insider to the Trump campaign.

“• Carter Page is an energy industry executive and head of his own firm, Global Energy Capital. He was formerly an investment banker at Merrill Lynch. He is the only advisor on Trump’s list who is a member of the internationalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), where he was previously an International Affairs Fellow and co-director of the CFR’s study group on energy development in the Caspian Sea region.”

Heidy Cruz provided ONE paragraph for a report to the CFR. Oh, you already knew that, right? And you have just started parroting Trump supporter talking points because you really don’t know squat. Trump actually hired a foreign advisor who is currently a Fellow with the CFR.

You’re not the only person to ever have been taken in by a carnival barker but you really should stop showing to the world.

@retire05:

Heidy Cruz provided ONE paragraph for a report to the CFR….

Interesting that you bring up Heidi Cruz:

Heidi Cruz: ‘Ted Is an Immigrant’

“Ted is an immigrant. He is Hispanic,” Heidi Cruz said of her Texas senator husband, an American citizen who renounced his Canadian citizenship though he was born north of the border. “He can unify this party.”

“We have libertarians joining our cause. I have people every day from the Democrat Party telling me that they re-registered to vote for Ted as a Republican. Because they understand what he stands for, and he represents America.”

As of press time, it is unclear whether Heidi meant to say that Ted Cruz is the son of an immigrant father, or whether her line was a Freudian slip referring to the fact that Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

Ouch!

Give it up, Redteam. More than one federal judge has disagreed with you.

No Retire05, you are wrong. Those Federal Judges weasled-out and simply found procedural reasons to wash their hands of dismiss the cases questioning his eligibility. Not a single Judge has made any ruling whatsoever of affirmation on whether Ted Cruz is a “Natural Born Citizen”. I wish they had one way or the other, but it has not happened.

Don’t get me wrong. To be honest, I support, or can at least appreciate quite a bit (not all) of Ted Cruz conservative positions. I really would like to believe Cruz is eligible, but we simply don’t know. That makes it problematic. His wife’s (Freudian?) slip makes it even more problematic.

I think Cruz became a citizen because of the Naturalization Act that became law about 10 years after the country was founded
That made him a citizen,, but he was not a natural born citizen

@Ajay42302: AGAIN… you have no specific statement, no specific action, no specific provication from Trump that actually justifies a left wing promoted riot.

Don’t worry…. I fully understand.

I did not attempt to justify a left wing promoted riot or associate Trump to that. I simply pointed out how ridiculous it is to say that Trump’s the right guy to stop the violence when he has endorsed it all along. I mean, what planet is Dr. John writing from?

As I suspected, you fully understand which means your only obvious intentions were to derail that argument rather than contribute to it.

@Ditto:

No Retire05, you are wrong.

Nope.

Those Federal Judges weasled-out and simply found procedural reasons to wash their hands of dismiss the cases questioning his eligibility. Not a single Judge has made any ruling whatsoever of affirmation on whether Ted Cruz is a “Natural Born Citizen”. I wish they had one way or the other, but it has not happened.

Do you know what an “judicial opinion” is? I doubt it. Have you even read those judge’s opinion. Don’t lie now. Be honest enough to admit you haven’t.

@Ajay42302:

I simply pointed out how ridiculous it is to say that Trump’s the right guy to stop the violence when he has endorsed it all along.

How has he “endorsed” violence? By suggesting that if anyone stands up to the left wing aggression being utilized against his supporters, he will provide them support?

Those endorsing violence are those who will not identify the actual source though they know it and condemn all involved.

My intention is to back you and every other liberal mouthpiece into a corner and force you to reveal that you have no idea what you are talking about…. which I obviously have done.

@retire05:

Do you know what an “judicial opinion” is?

Of course. But then you are trying to attack the messenger rather than the message.

Have you even read those judge’s opinion.

Yes I did read the judge’s opinions, did you? The answer is clearly that you did not. As I said they made no ruling whatsoever on whether Cruz was a “natural born citizen” the merely dismissed the cases for various procedural grounds, whilst one of these Federal Judge did deem Cruz eligible, that judge did so only assuming that Cruz was eligible and did not in fact even address the issue of what constitutes a ‘natural born citizen’. I honestly was hoping that at least one of these judges would have made a ruling on the questions of ‘what is a natural born citizen and whether Ted Cruz meets that definition.’ I can only assume that you are aware that a federal judge’s opinion is only valid under that court’s jurisdiction, and not over the entire United States. I’ve said over and over that I could vote for Cruz if only that question was settled. Cruz himself clearly didn’t want a court to rule on the issue, which concerns me. More’s the pity.

@Ditto:

Yes I did read the judge’s opinions, did you? The answer is clearly that you did not. As I said they made no ruling whatsoever on whether Cruz was a “natural born citizen” the merely dismissed the cases for various procedural grounds.

And what part of either opinion did what you claim without addressing the issue itelf? QUOTE IT.

@john:

I have a class A cdl I burn a lot more fuel than you

Solar powered trucks don’t burn fuel. I’d thunk you’d known that.

I can’t really understand why you posted that RedTeam
Could you explain what that means ? And also did have trouble finding the real results of the VOTING FRAUD SCANDAL!!! In Wood County Ohio?
Or did you find it but simply refused to admit that Scopes was correct on that and that you got hoaxed?

@retire05:

Give it up, Redteam. More than one federal judge has disagreed with you.

You spent the rest of your answer disagreeing with me. You do know that no judge has ruled on the technical issue of whether Cruz is a natural born citizen, right? Any ruling in any case is normally cited as a lack of standing. Just how any citizen of the US can not be affected by the legitimacy of the president is something I don’t understand, and of course the judges know that every US citizen (and that might not include Cruz) has standing to bring suit. They just don’t want to be the one to take away the ice cream. Anyone willing to overlook the issue is only doing it because it’s who they want to be the nominee. You know, I know and everyone that understands US law knows that Cruz is not a natural born citizen. (we do know that he was born a citizen of Canada and Cuba and it is legally impossible to be natural born when you are born with split allegiance). A natural born citizen can only have allegiance to one country. Cruz has allegiance to two, and possibly three(if he’s a US citizen).
The issue would only be settled if Cruz somehow got the nomination, but that’s now a lost cause for him, so we won’t know(at least for several more years)

@John:

I can’t really understand why you posted that RedTeam
Could you explain what that means ?

You’re kidding, right? You have spent considerable time telling us that solar power is the answer to all problems of the world and you want us to think you’re driving large trucks that aren’t solar powered? All that area on the tops of all those trailers and you don’t have solar panels on them? Tell me you’re kidding.

And also did have trouble finding the real results of the VOTING FRAUD SCANDAL!!!

Nope, no problem.

simply refused to admit that Scopes was correct

I will only say Snopes did their usual job on that. Some people are easily fooled.

@DrJohn: Trump doesn’t endorse violence against his supporters. He endorses violence against those that don’t support him.

Solar power will be only one of the renewables that we will be increasingly using in the future
I never said it would be the only one
Perhaps you hit that idea because it is the best for decentralized home power, not everyone can have hydro power installed at home
However here in NYC we are seeing increasing numbers of electric trucks being used for store to store deliveries such as CocaCola and Rite Aid pharmacies
But Red Team did you in fact find the official results for 2912 Wood County voting and are not they in fact the same as Snopes? And wasn’t it a lie that Obama somehow got more votes in that country than were registered voters ?
Perhaps you could be willing to provide a link so that we would all know that you did in fact get to see the correct results
Obama barely won that county, 52-48%
He did not receive more votes than there were registered voters

@John:

I think Cruz became a citizen because of the Naturalization Act that became law about 10 years after the country was founded
That made him a citizen,,

I’m not sure that’s true. There are several requirements to be a ‘naturalized’ citizen of the US and I’m not sure, and too many don’t want to know the true answer to that question, that Cruz meets all those requirements.
If he was actually born as the child of a citizen mother, and if all the proper paperwork was filed with the USA, then he might actually be a naturalized, but not natural born, US citizen. There are questions as to whether his mother was still a US citizen when he was born, and there are questions as to whether his birth was properly recorded in the US. He does not want us to know the answers to those questions. That says a lot.
We do know that he was born in Canada so he was born a Canadian, and he was born as a Cuban citizen because Cuba has the same ‘born of a citizen’ laws that the US has. So, definitely Canadian and Cuban, not known about US. We do know at a minimum he was born with split allegiance and that precludes ‘natural born’.
If I was a Cruz fan, I would ignore those facts.

@John:

However here in NYC we are seeing increasing numbers of electric trucks being used for store to store deliveries such as CocaCola and Rite Aid pharmacies

So are you in favor of this? You do know that electric vehicles are amongst the least energy efficiency vehicles there are, right? How much electricity is being generated and not used, while on standby to randomly charge batteries on electric vehicles. Where do you think that standby power comes from? Solar cells? at 2 AM? Want to bet that they are taxpayer subsidized? If it was a deal, they would be paying us for the privilege of using them.

Solar power will be only one of the renewables

Solar is no more renewable than gas fired turbine generators, or nuclear reactors, or hydroelectric. In fact, I can renew my fuel supply of LNG at 2 AM, but I’ll bet you can’t renew your fuel supply of solar at 2 AM. Can you?

not everyone can have hydro power installed at home

I don’t have hydro power at my home, it’s mostly natural gas fired turbines in this part of the world. That’ll always be renewable, at least for a few thousand more years. By then, the bleeding hearts will let us use nuclear and then there will never be a shortage.

But Red Team did you in fact find the official results for 2912 Wood County voting and are not they in fact the same as Snopes? And wasn’t it a lie that Obama somehow got more votes in that country than were registered voters ?

believe it or not John, that’s simple to answer. Yes and no.

@Ajay42302: #68. A person that defends themselves against someone getting in their face and violently disrupting an event they have chosen to attend is not a “thug”. They are doing exactly what they should do.

@Redteam:

You spent the rest of your answer disagreeing with me.

Because you’re wrong.

Frankly, I’m sick of you shouting “Birther, birther, birther”. You’ve worn that record out. Just be honest and state that you’re supporting Trump and be done with it.

I doubt that you even bothered to read the opinions of the judges or you would not be accusing them of dereliction of duty.

@Bill: @Ajay42302: #68. “A person that defends themselves against someone getting in their face and violently disrupting an event they have chosen to attend is not a “thug”. They are doing exactly what they should do.”

If your imaginary recreation of events were the case, your argument would have credence. But that isn’t the case, which again I’m sure of, you are fully aware of.

#66:
Retire05’s right, Red. The explanation you’ve given of what constitutes a “natural-born citizen” isn’t what the courts have recognized, and that’s what matters.

Courts looked at Obama, and NONE of them did squat. Of all the Republican judges in the nation, NOT ONE took the “birther” bait. You have to bend all the way backward to shove your head up your own _SS to find a conspiracy theory crazy enough to explain that, and if you DO find one, it understandably stinks. The same thing holds true with Cruz. No court is going to nix him, for the same reason that Obama wasn’t.

You ARE right that the law regarding eligibility for the presidency won’t be tested for Cruz, but it isn’t because he won’t get the nomination. He might. But the eligibility law was written in a somewhat less complicated time, and I doubt that the framers of the law anticipated the hair-splitting distinctions that cases like Obama’s and Cruz’s present. Federal judges understand this about the law (law professors have been teaching as much for generations) and they understand that any decision that they might personally reach would be challenged all the way to the top, and the ultimate decision at that level would be that the law as-written is too vague to enforce. That would leave us with LESS restriction (until the Congress and the President agreed on a BETTER law – good luck with that) than we have now, and no judge wants to be personally responsible for visiting that chaos on the nation.

Retire05’s right. You’re doing your broken record thing again. Give it a rest.

@retire05:

Frankly, I’m sick of you shouting “Birther, birther, birther”. You’ve worn that record out. Just be honest and state that you’re supporting Trump and be done with it.

I don’t think you can quote me as ever using the word, birther, except once to say that Hillary’s people are the originators of the term in reference to Obama. I don’t use that word. Don’t know what your illness is,

Frankly, I’m sick

but you might need to see a Dr for it. I would have no problem stating that I support Trump if I were ‘supporting’ Trump. I will likely vote for him, but I’m not actively politicking for him. As of the moment, I don’t see any alternative to Trump(I actually might would vote for Cruz if he were eligible, but that bridge has been crossed) and we sure need someone to keep Hillary from getting the job.

I doubt that you even bothered to read the opinions of the judges

Actually, I did read their statements, they weren’t opinions, and they made no judgements, none of them on the question of ‘natural born citizen’.

@George Wells:

Retire05’s right, Red.

First you’ve blown your credibility several ways. For one, you referred to Hastert as a pedophile when it is well known, from what I’ve heard, that all his liasons were with teen age boys. That’s HOMOSEXUALITY, not pedophilia. And then, I know from your comments, even though O5 has told you to bug out, you are still fascinated by her. So I suspect any opinions you give are highly prejudiced.

Courts looked at Obama, and NONE of them did squat.

And the main ‘squat’ they didn’t do was to give an opinion.

isn’t what the courts have recognized, and that’s what matters.

Ah, so, the courts have ‘not’ recognized anything pertaining to the issue, and as you said ‘that’s what matters’. So you’re saying that since they have not said anything, or made a judgment or rendered an opinion that the constitution saying ‘natural born’ is still the law. I’ll go along with that.

law anticipated the hair-splitting distinctions

well, except there is nothing ‘hair splitting’ about it. You either are born with two US citizens parents or you’re not. No hairs have to be split, it’s just a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ issue.
We still don’t even know if Cruz is an American citizen or not. At least no proof has been presented.

(until the Congress and the President agreed on a BETTER law

Congress and the president don’t amend the constitution, it also requires the states to approve it.

Retire05’s right. You’re doing your broken record thing again. Give it a rest.

As I pointed out to her when she repeated that word 3 times, it’s not a word that my record player is even using, much less repeating.
Footnote: George, 05 doesn’t need the feeble assistance of someone that doesn’t know the difference in pedophilia and homosexuality.

#77:

“you referred to Hastert as a pedophile when it is well known, from what I’ve heard, that all his liasons were with teen age boys. That’s HOMOSEXUALITY, not pedophilia.”

“The use of a child or other individuals younger than the age of consent for sexual stimulation is referred to as child sexual abuse or statutory rape.”

It would seem that Hastert IS a homosexual, but what he did to those boys isn’t simply “homosexuality,” it is “child homosexual abuse,” since you are obsessed with nomenclature all of a sudden.

If you think that the law regarding POTUS eligibility is clear, then WHY DIDN’T A SINGLE REPUBLICAN JUDGE TAKE THE OBAMA CASE????
Numbskull!
SAME REASON THE CRUZ CASE WON’T FLY!!!
Don’t change the subject just because you can’t think of an excuse!
IDIOT!

@Redteam:

I don’t think you can quote me as ever using the word, birther, except once to say that Hillary’s people are the originators of the term in reference to Obama. I don’t use that word.

Semantics.

You either are born with two US citizens parents or you’re not.

In no section of the Constitution addressing citizenship does it say two parents.

Actually, I did read their statements, they weren’t opinions, and they made no judgements, none of them on the question of ‘natural born citizen’.

You’re full of shite. The Pennsylvania judge clearly opined:

“Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution.”

You can’t get more declaratory that that.

@George Wells:

It would seem that Hastert IS a homosexual, but what he did to those boys isn’t simply “homosexuality,” it is “child homosexual abuse,

Ok, so you admit again that I’m correct, so it seems strange that you jump off the deep end so regularly accusing me of being wrong and then it turns out, alas, it is you that is wrong once again. Seems as if you’d get tired of being consistently embarrassed for being wrong. Maybe you should just wait until I say something and then agree with it. That would be a major warranty against you being wrong.

Numbskull!

IDIOT!

Civility is now on vacation, right? I can’t help it if you can’t keep your story straight. That’s your problem.

@retire05:

Semantics.

which is usually important to you. Well, unless you’re wrong.

In no section of the Constitution addressing citizenship does it say two parents.

Actually, it does. That is all inclusive in ‘natural born’.

“Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution.”

Clearly that judge had no clue what he was attempting to rule on. He said “there is no question”, if there was no question, then there was no answer. What do you think his answer applied to since there was ‘no question’ that he was addressing?

The Pennsylvania judge clearly opined:

“Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution.”

You can’t get more declaratory that that.

Again, one Federal Court judge’s opinion does not hold beyond the jurisdiction reach of that court. Nor is any court outside that jurisdiction (or any higher court) bound by law to accept that particular judge’s opinion.. There are a variety of differing legal opinions on the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen.” Until the Supreme Court passes a ruling defining once and for all what it accepts as the “correct” definition. I welcome a higher court decision to one and for all put that issue to bed. I would think that if Cruz truly felt he was in his right to identify himself as a “natural Born Citizen” that he too would welcome such a high court ruling. The burden of proof is for Cruz’ lawyers to meet, to show that he has the proper eligibility. The fact that his legal side has refused to appeal the case to the highest courts level to prove his eligibility on a national level, and the fact that Ted himself refuses to go public and provide proof of his eligibility is what has made me step back and wonder why they are playing this so evasively.

If his mother actually retained her US citizenship, and did not in fact file to be naturalized as a Canadian citizen, then Yes, Cruz is a US citizen. Just because a baby is born overseas does not in of itself make the child a citizen of that country. The majority of the world’s nations (including the US, Cuba, Mexico & Canada,) recognize children born to their citizens (while the parent is abroad, as also being citizen’s of the parent’s home nation. The problem in Cruz’ case is that none of the listed nations recognizes dual-citizenship (much less trio-citizenship, and while Cruz’ mother may have still been a US citizen it appears his father was still a Cuban citizen, and generally, (at the time Ted was born,) nations recognized the father’s nation of origin as the determining factor of the child’s nationality. When his parents relocated to the US, they did not file the legal paper work to claim which nation they wanted Ted Cruz to be a citizen of. Yes, Cruz finally, famously went on TV to renounce his eligibility to be a Canadian citizen, but still ,as of yet, Ted has failed to fill out the legal paperwork required by Canada.

Ted Cruz and his parents constructed and packed this can of worms and neglected to sort it all out. So don’t blame Redteam or myself, as the onus is not on us to prove Cruz ineligible, the onus belongs to Ted, the GOP and Cruz’ lawyers to provide proof that he is a “natural Born Citizen”. I for one would be delighted to have the highest court finally make a coherent ruling on the correct meaning of ‘natural born citizen’.

You can be damned sure, (providing Cruz somehow, magically pulls a GOP nomination out of his hat,) that Hillary and her team are already, eagerly, awaiting a chance to use this against Cruz. It’s always best to have an issue like this settled during the primary season so that it doesn’t impact the general election.

@Ajay42302: Well, yeah, that is EXACTLY the case. You should delve more into facts and reality and lay off the left wing propaganda. Again, when and how has Trump promoted violence and why do you use such a weak premise to excuse violent suppression of 1st Amendment rights by your party?

That 1790s naturalization act was the first that actually said citizenship was given to those born outside of the us
There is a question if it meant to follow English common law which only gave British citizenshipif it passed through the father

#80:

“so you admit again that I’m correct”

No, I disagreed with you, and having suffered a debilitating stroke, you failed to notice anything OTHER than the expanding pool of blood that was pressing in on your few remaining brain cells. I originally said that Hastert was a pedophile. No, he hasn’t been charged with being a pedophile (primarily because being a pedophile isn’t a crime) and he hasn’t been charged with pedophilic behavior, but you cannot prove that he ISN’T a pedophile, simply because he hasn’t been charged. He hasn’t been charged with ANY sex crime, in spite of our knowing that he has committed aggravated sexual assault on a minor. He has successfully avoided prosecution because of lousy statute-of-limitations regarding such crimes. That isn’t agreeing with you.

Since you are obviously suffering from serious attention deficit disorder-like symptoms undoubtedly relating to your recent stroke, I’ll ask you again:

“If you think that the law regarding POTUS eligibility is clear, then WHY DIDN’T A SINGLE REPUBLICAN JUDGE TAKE THE OBAMA CASE????”

If you STILL can’t answer that question, call 911.

@Bill: @DrJohn:

Trump has repeatedly urged his supporters to “knock the crap out of them”, encouraged “punch them in the face” and has even offered to pay the legal expenses for his thugs that do. He has even told his blind thugs that he wouldn’t blame them if they rioted.

When you act utterly ignorant of this, as if it never happened, it demonstrates how profoundly dishonest you are in your arguments, that reality has no place in your rubber/glue game of blaming the left for provoking violence as you genuflect to egotistical charlatan that did.

@Ajay42302:
Yikes !! That is going to hurt DR J

@Ditto: True and the Judge in NJ found the same, true Illinois and NY tossed out the case. Both based ruling on 1790 law
Trying the only through a male citizen argument is not going to fly. The 2 cases were not dismissed.

@George Wells

No, I disagreed with you,

BS, you said Hastert was a pedophile, I said he was a homosexual. You conceded he is a homosexual. How is that a disagreement?
He can’t be charged with pedophilia, unless some more evidence of him having sex with a pre-pubescent child comes out. I’ve not discussed him being a pedophile, that’s all on you. My comments were and still are, that his activities are that of a homosexual. I don’t know if they were criminal or not, haven’t heard that he was charged or convicted of homosexuality.

Since you are obviously suffering from serious attention deficit disorder-like symptoms undoubtedly relating to your recent stroke, I’ll ask you again:

And then you forgot to ask.
Call 911 and give them your address.

You are trying for humor today, right?

RedTeam
Hastret had at least one victim that was 14 years old
In the vernacular that would fit the criteria for acpedophile
RedTeam will defend anyone on the GOP

#92:

” haven’t heard that he was charged or convicted of homosexuality.”

And you wouldn’t likely hear that, would you, since homosexuality isn’t a CRIME here in America.
He didn’t offer to pay the boy $3.5 million because he was a homosexual, he agreed to pay it because he diddled with the under-age lad, and others to boot. THAT was his crime, until he got away with it due to statutes of limitations.

“And then you forgot to ask.”

The question is right there. It’s the second block-quote in my #86 post. Shall we add vision loss to your laundry list of defects? But here, I’ll post the question AGAIN. Read it this time:

“If you think that the law regarding POTUS eligibility is clear, then WHY DIDN’T A SINGLE REPUBLICAN JUDGE TAKE THE OBAMA CASE????”

@DrJohn:

I don’t question the intelligence of the Trump Lickers but I do question their reasoning. They are the angry sort (angry at whatever of their choosing which in your case, seems to be anger of the “left”) and this anger prevents them from accepting anything factual that interferes with their hate feast.

You can only interpret that to “throw a tomato” only means an actual physical tomato and not an expression of disapproval-unless of course when a young black man gets assaulted and beaten while flipping a bird as he’s being escorted out. I suppose the bird can be construed as a tomato this time? You can’t see past anything coded because your selected anger deflects it.

To claim that Trump is the right guy to end violence simply defies anything of reason. While I’m sure the Trump Thugs and Trump Lickers will buy into it (much like they honestly believe he’ll return high paying jobs from overseas while he’s tossing them “Make America Great Again” ball caps from his Chinese factory or that he’s going to deport all of his cheap workers who have helped build his casino and motel empire) but people of reason and not inflicted with partisan blindness won’t.

No it is the same person
I think my iPhone is always trying to auto correct to the first time I misspelled his name
But thanks for pointing it out the spelling may be important to others also

Maybe to avoid that in the future I should just refer to him as
The GOP’s longedt serving Speaker of the House (#2 in line to POTUS)
But that does seem to rub your noses in the claim of GOP superior morality