Make Republicans Look Stupid, Again

By 44 Comments 1,954 views

Abysmal:

During a Friday campaign rally in Redding, California, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump illustrated his “tremendous” support from black voters by pointing to a black man in the crowd, exclaiming, “Look at my African-American over here!”

The real-estate mogul used the unnamed black male to relay a story about how the media allegedly mistook his black supporter “cold-clocking” a protester in a Ku Klux Klan-like hood to be a Trump anti-protester. “We had a case where we had an African-American guy who is a fan of mine, great fan, great guy,” he said before pointing. “Look at my African-American over here. Look at him! Are you the greatest? Do you know what I’m talking about?”

Nah, Muhammad Ali was the Greatest (you know…a Muslim-American? Or more accurately, a convert to Sufi Islam in his later years). And what are you talking about?!

Next he will be trouting out his Mexican-American friend.

Sorry, FA. I’m still not there yet.

The only thing Trump really has going for him is the terrible two candidates on the opposite side of the muck pond; and the anti-Trump idiots protesting his rallies, which helps him rather than harms him.

44 Responses to “Make Republicans Look Stupid, Again”

  1. 1

    Spurwing Plover

    The Demacrat party the party of the KKK and the slave owners Lincoln was a Republican and freed the slaves now their slaves still of the demacrats

  2. 2

    Greg

    JFK, RFK, and LBJ were all Democrats, as I recall. In 1963 President Kennedy enforced the Supreme Court’s decision that segregation was unconstitutional by sending federal marshals to directly confront Alabama Governor George Wallace, who vowed to block enrollment of blacks into University of Alabama, and then by federalizing the Alabama National Guard.

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 resulted from the request JFK made for such legislation in his civil rights address of June 11, 1963. The bill passed with majority support among both Democrats and Republicans in both the House and the Senate.

    The South essentially abandoned democrats because the Democratic Party abandoned the segregationists.

  3. 3

    Dreadnought

    @Greg:

    The South essentially abandoned democrats because the Democratic Party abandoned the segregationists.

    They are still the Party of Segregation – they just went a different way about it. They saw that the old style segregation and disenfranchisement was a lost cause, so they changed to driving as many wedges into society as possible.

    By convincing people into believing that they are part of some oppressed minority or another and telling them that Democrats will give them special treatment, Democrats claim the moral high ground against Republicans, who generally, since the Civil War, just want everyone to be treated equally, no special favors for anyone. The latest “oppressed minority” that has been identified for political exploitation are the trans-gendered. In a few years, it might be left-handed albinos.

    Back to the subject at hand, the only people making Republicans look stupid are those trying to run a third party candidate, the #NeverTrump guys. The primary process is all but done and the Party members have spoken – for better or worse, Trump is our flag carrier. The party has to unite behind him, or the Democrats win. It’s as simple as that.

    There is no hope in hell that a 3rd party candidate will win in 2016. All these assholes will do is hand over the country to a criminal sociopath (Clinton) or a raving Socialist that has never held an honest job in his life.

  4. 4

    Bookdoc

    TRUMP makes repubs look bad? HA! Look at the do-nothing Republican House and Senate that has been rubber stamping and ignoring the king’s actions. They are the ones that make the party look dumb. Trump jokes around and even the repub’s call him racist. I am beginning to hope that this election does destroy the old guard repubs and gives us a chance to survive. I also believe that, if these fools helps put the hildebeast into the White House, it will be the end of the United States.

  5. 5

    Ajay42302

    @Greg:

    The South essentially abandoned democrats because the Democratic Party abandoned the segregationists.

    The fine tuned Southern Strategy, as Lee Atwater openly admitted to, played a major role as well.

    @Bookdoc:
    Your illogical rants become even more, well, illogical. You continue to argue the GOP has laid down to Obama while their filibusters, obstructions, and refusals to seat nominees has shattered historical records. One has to wonder precisely what you’re talking about.

    And this hope of destroying “old guard repubs” doesn’t make sense either as that leaves democrats, which you state or imply as worse. The tea party is simply a movement and not a political party.

    As far as those “rebups” admonising Trumps racism, it’s actually to their credit.

  6. 6

    skyshark

    What can be said is that more democrats opposed the bill then republicans.

    The Senate version:
    •Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
    •Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

    •The House version:
    •Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
    •Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

    •Basically out of 157 nays 111 were democrats. Most Democrats from the Southern states opposed the bill and led an unsuccessful 83-day filibuster, including Senators Albert Gore, Sr. (D-TN) and J. William Fulbright (D-AR), as well as Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who personally filibustered for 14 hours straight.

  7. 8

    Greg

    So, Hispanics, Afro-Americans, and women have all been bamboozled by democrats into believing that the GOP in general and Donald Trump don’t represent their best interests, when, in fact, they do. It’s an interesting theory.

  8. 9

    Dreadnought

    @Greg:

    So, Hispanics, Afro-Americans, and women have all been bamboozled by democrats into believing that the GOP in general and Donald Trump don’t represent their best interests, when, in fact, they do. It’s an interesting theory.

    It’s a fact. The Democratic party and the racebaiters and other special interests that support it want as many people with a big chip on their shoulders as they can convince. One thing that Republicans, for all their faults, have ALWAYS stood for is equal treatment for everyone. No affirmative action, no special privileges, simply equal rights and let time sort things out.

    Look at Asian Americans. When Asians started coming to the US in large numbers in the late 1800s they were treated as bad or worse than blacks during that time. But for some reason (cultural maybe?) they never became resentful – they just got to work, opened businesses, educated their kids and are now as successful (or more) as the general population. Does anyone think of them as oppressed or disadvantaged? No. They simply showed everyone that they were as capable as anyone else of being honest, hardworking members of society.

    The worst thing that happened to blacks in America are all the “Leaders” they had that taught them to be resentful. I don’t think MLK was like that – he sought for people to be judged on their character, not color – which made his death twice the tragedy. Maybe the race hustlers like Jackson, Sharpton and Farakan would not have gained so much traction had he lived.

    And Obama has been among the worst. He and his wife had a unique opportunity over the past 8 years, and he not only wasted it, he made matters worse. He could have made his message to all Americans that, after 150 years, blacks have gone from slavery to the highest office in the land. Let the past be the past, let’s all let go of the old resentments and move forward from here. But instead he made matters worse – as we knew he would before he was elected. He comes from the Sharpton/Jackson school. But it would have been nice to have been wrong about him.

  9. 12

    Pete

    @Greg:

    Laughable. The left “represents the needs” of various groups in the same manner that a drug dealer represents the needs of the addicts the drug pusher got addicted to his poison.

  10. 13

    kitt

    @Pete: OMG you finally get it! yes they are addicted Greg to handouts. Its the same reason you do not feed the bears in your parks and back yard they become dependent, what do you think they would do if a law were passed that they were only allowed 3 years total on the tax payers dime?
    And those that have been on the taxpayers dime for 5 or more years would be on their own?

  11. 14

    Pete

    Leftism is the twisted philosophy that claims it is selfish greed for an individual to want to keep what he earns, but it is not greedy to demand that government take from those who have earned to give to those who have not earned it.

    Leftism screams that it is jingoistic racism to wave the US flag, but not to wave another nation’s flag while burning the US flag.

    Leftism shrieks about alleged “bigoted” Christian opposition to state coerced forced participation in ceremonies of homogamy, while ignoring muslims throwing homosexuals to their deaths off buildings.

    Leftism wails like a banshee over the shooting of a gorilla endangering a child, but insists on the “right” to dismember or chemically burn to death pre-born humans for the convenience of those who are post-parturent.

    Leftism hypocritically claims a woman smiling and pointing to her Trump shirt is to blame for being assaulted by others, while insisting it is misogyny bordering on rape to compliment a woman’s dress.

    Leftism demands we believe the bogus statistic that 1 in 5 college women are rape victims, while hypocritically ignoring the behavior of Bill Clinton towards Broadrick, Willey, Jones and others.

    Leftism poses in a ridiculous act of false compassion for the feelings of those afflicted with the mental illness of Gender Identity Confusion, while insisting little girls need to “get over” their feelings of discomfort about men pretending to be women using public restrooms.

    The quote, “Whom the gods would destroy, they first drive insane” has never been more appropriate than regarding the modern left.

  12. 15

    Missy

    @Greg:

    The Civil Rights Act began before Kennedy with Eisenhower signing his Civil Rights Act into law. Though much weakened by the democrats, particularly Lyndon Baines Johnson, it paved the way for Everett Dirksen, Republican from Illinois, to almost work himself to death getting the new bill through Congress so Johnson could sign it.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/opinion/12nichols.html?_r=0

    And, btw, Kennedy’s nemesis blocking those school house doors, George Wallace ran as a democrat in 64, ran as an American Independent in 68 and then back to the democrat party in 72.

    The switch to the GOP in the south was due to economic issues, the Southern Strategy. The democrats myth of the Southern Strategy began when a liberal journalist published his faulty opinion of it in the NYTimes.

  13. 18

    Ajay42302

    @Dreadnought: You didn’t elaborate much on precisely what tools they had in that “unique opportunity” tool box that was suppose to persuade people of all walks and skin color to all hold hands and sing kumbaya.

    It also doesn’t help much with the opposition party constantly tooting their birther dog whistles along with rabid right leaning blogs doing a happy dance every time a white guy nailed one in a gated community or some white cop dropped another one with a shot in the back. It’s rather obvious that many on the right were rather pissed at a black guy in the WH.

    But yeah, it’s all Obama’s fault. But the again, what isn’t?

  14. 19

    Ditto

    So, Wordsmith would what, have us vote for Hillary or Bernie so that one of them can complete Obama’s adopted (Dreams of my Father,) plan to destroy this nation?

    No, I don’t think so. Yes, we know that many of the Republican authors and moderators here on FA do not like Trump. The alternative however is even worse. Wordsmith may want to believe that Trump is a racist, but I don’t buy into that contrived argument (Really Wordsmith? The Daily Beast? I’m surprised at you).

    Sorry Friends, If You Are #NeverTrump Then You Are #4Hillary

    In the seven months since I made that statement the picture has gotten bleaker than it was back then. I still think Ted Cruz is the best candidate conservatives had in the race, but he is unfortunately not the candidate who won a majority of the delegates – that distinction goes to Donald Trump – and it is to Trump that right-of-center voters will have to look if our country and constitutional liberty are to survive.

    And make no mistake, this election is about the survival of the country that Donald Trump has promised to make great again. Obama, Hillary Clinton and their far-left allies have increased the tempo of their assaults on constitutional liberty and the external threats to our national security and domestic tranquility have grown ever greater.

    (Snip)

    I find it very strange that many of the same individuals who decry Donald Trump’s deviations from conservative orthodoxy were quick to try to explain away the Romney family’s support for Planned Parenthood and other decidedly anti-conservative organizations and institutions.

    And I find it stranger still that many of the Republicans and alleged conservatives who huddle over their smartphones tweeting outrage over Trump’s kneecapping of his various primary opponents were on strict radio silence when Romney did much the same thing to Newt Gingrich.

    If you are angry and think Trump can’t be trusted or that he won’t fulfill his promises I say grow up and get in the real world – no politician, including Ronald Reagan the greatest president of my life time, fulfills 100% of their campaign promises.

    The question is not will Trump bat 1000? It is will Trump try to undo the damage eight years of Obama and a feckless GOP Congress have inflicted upon America? And the undoubted answer to that is YES.

    As for the self-proclaimed Conservative ‘purists’ in FA land:

    For those who say they are #NeverTrump because “Donald Trump is not a conservative” on this and that issue I’m curious as to what version of conservatism they subscribe to – the George W. Bush version that says Islam is a religion of peace and led us into an apparently endless and inconclusive war in the Middle East, or the Donald Trump version that says defeat radical Islam wherever we find it?

    Or maybe it is the Paul Ryan version of conservatism that says we should fund Obama’s extra-constitutional amnesty for illegal aliens, the Planned Parenthood Industry of Death and a grotesque list of crony government raids on the taxpayers for things like “green energy” and bailouts of Puerto Rico?

    The fact of the matter is that when one examines the views of many of the Republican and allegedly conservative #NeverTrump holdouts they are a lot closer to Hillary Clinton and the rest of the DC elite than they are to the views of the millions of country class citizens who turned-out to support Donald Trump.

    Many #NeverTrump adherents seem to reject even a conversation about the threat of radical Islam. They are all about the econometric model of open borders that is supported by both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and far-left racial interest groups, and they have no interest in cutting spending or limited government, because government power is how they enforce their elitist views on the rest of us.

    If this is standing for conservative principles I must have missed a turn in the road between the day in 1961 when I was hired as Executive Secretary of Young Americans for Freedom and today’s debate over whether or not the congressional Republican leaders who presided over an 80%+ increase in a national debt that now stands at over $18 trillion should get their hands dirty by endorsing Donald Trump.

    The news media and DC’s elite pundits like to dance around the facts with euphemisms like “spoiler,” but it is time for those Republicans and conservatives who say they are #NeverTrump to come clean and to look in the mirror and repeat this list:

    I’m OK with Hillary Clinton appointing three or four Supreme Court Justices.

    I’m OK with Hillary Clinton appointing hundreds of Federal Court Judges.

    I’m OK with Hillary Clinton stripping me of my Second Amendment rights.

    I’m OK with Hillary Clinton using the power of the IRS and other federal agencies to terminate my First Amendment rights and the First Amendment rights of other Conservatives.

    I’m OK with Hillary Clinton expanding Obama’s open borders and unlimited immigration policies.

    And, I’m OK with the Hillary Clinton deciding the outer limits of my freedom of conscience and whether or not I can worship God and raise my children as my conscience dictates.

    I say to anyone who claims to be a #NeverTrump conservative, look in the mirror and read that list, and if this is you, then be honest and admit that you prefer Hillary Clinton in the White House and why. Then drop the charade and have the guts to defend your choice to advance Hillary Clinton’s campaign and take ownership of the destruction of liberty and constitutional government that her election will surely bring.

    Strong words, and why, while Trump was not my preferred candidate, while I continue to roll my eyes and face-palm over some of the things he has said, Trump is still a better choice than another GOPe progressive and unquestionably better than our having Hillary or Bernie as president. I will therefore vote for Trump. There is no other viable alternative.

  15. 20

    Nanny G

    @Ditto: I continue to roll my eyes and face-palm over some of the things he has said, Trump is still a better choice than another GOPe progressive and unquestionably better than our having Hillary or Bernie as president.

    I’ve been doing that, too, with the eyes and palm, Ditto.
    So, today Trump has released a statement that attempts to put this issue to rest.
    It won’t do that.
    (See also http://www.98percentapproval.com. )
    The Left, the Conservatives of Never Trump and the media smell red meat.
    So, while ISIS locked 19 young girls in a metal cage then lit them all on fire for refusing to have sex with their fighters, Donald Trump’s court case is in the forefront.
    A part of his statement moves away from the judge’s status as an Hispanic and towards his behavior in this case and his personal life:

    Normally, legal issues in a civil case would be heard in a neutral environment. However, given my unique circumstances as nominee of the Republican Party and the core issues of my campaign that focus on illegal immigration, jobs and unfair trade, I have concerns as to my ability to receive a fair trial.

    I am fighting hard to bring jobs back to the United States. Many companies – like Ford, General Motors, Nabisco, Carrier – are moving production to Mexico. Drugs and illegal immigrants are also pouring across our border. This is bad for all Americans, regardless of their heritage.

    Due to what I believe are unfair and mistaken rulings in this case and the Judge’s reported associations with certain professional organizations, questions were raised regarding the Obama appointed Judge’s impartiality. It is a fair question.

  16. 21

    retire05

    @Nanny G:

    “Due to what I believe are unfair and mistaken rulings in this case and the Judge’s reported associations with certain professional organizations, questions were raised regarding the Obama appointed Judge’s impartiality. It is a fair question.”

    Trump obtained his degree in law where?

    Where are the court records of Trump’s attorneys appealing the judge’s decisions? Where are the court records of Trump’s attorneys seeking the removal of the judge in the Trump U case? I would certainly like to read those transcripts.

  17. 22

    Ditto

    @Nanny G:

    So, while ISIS locked 19 young girls in a metal cage then lit them all on fire for refusing to have sex with their fighters, Donald Trump’s court case is in the forefront.

    Yes, the MSM is desperately (and predictably,) spinning and pushing more negative anti-Trump news to hurt his tally in the final state primaries.

    A part of his statement moves away from the judge’s status as an Hispanic and towards his behavior in this case and his personal life:

    Many feel Trump’s concern in the possible impartiality of this judge is justified.

    Donald Trump Is Correct To Hit ‘La Raza’ Judge For Latino Identity Politics

    The controversy erupted when Trump told CNN’s Jake Tapper that Gonzalo Curiel – the judge in the Trump University class action lawsuit – might not give him a fair shake because of the judge’s connection to Mexican political activism. After critics bemoaned such an accusation as racism, Trump doubled down on “Face the Nation.”

    “[Judge Curiel] is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine,” Trump told CBS’s John Dickerson. “But I say he’s got bias.” The club Trump was referring to was La Raza Lawyers; an organization with the stated mission “to promote the interests of the Latino communities throughout the state.”

    With La Raza and other such Aztlan organizations vehemently and violently protesting at Trump Rallies, it certainly sounds to me like Trump has a valid point.

    But what exactly had Trump done wrong? How was it unreasonable to suggest that a judge belonging to a group pledging to advance Latino interests might be biased against the man who wants to build the wall that hinders the interests of Latino politicians?

    Had we not just witnessed Latinos in San Jose throw eggs and sucker punches at Trump supporters, and wave the Mexican flag? Had not McConnell himself, by hoping Trump would change his standard rhetoric, conceded that liberal Latinos – of which Curiel belongs – viewed Trump’s proposals with animus?

    (Snip)

    Judge Curiel’s integrity is not being questioned by Trump just because of his Hispanic heritage. Trump is merely asserting that a person’s heritage does not foreclose a proper inquiry into their political activism and potential biases; he is suggesting that Curiel – a man who supports awarding an illegal alien a scholarship – might not view favorably a man who wants to deport the said scholarship recipient.

    Recusal is a common theme when pro-choice advocates run up against pro-life judges. Recently, some scholars wanted Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself from McCullen v. Coakley; a case concerning abortion clinic buffer zones. But such requests are rarely viewed in a negative light.

    The fact is seeking recusal – even if just discussing it – is a great way to preserve the integrity of the bench. Federal judges are appointed for life, unelected, and reviewed by other unelected judges. It is why Thomas Jefferson warned the federal bench could easily become a “despotism of an oligarchy.”

    So why blast Trump for his Jeffersonian view of the judiciary? Democrats know Hillary is in trouble. They know the economic outlook is bleak and for almost 8 years the party has had no answers. It is why Hillary is making much ado about nothing and, frankly, the voters don’t care about the judicial politics of one class action lawsuit.

    But this debate is not just about Trump or Trump University; it is about a politically correct double standard that permits liberals to use the faith of pro-life judges to boot them from a case, but calls questioning the ethnicity based activism of a liberal judge racism. And this is a concept the voters understand.

    Even establishment editorial FOX celebrity O’Reilly agrees with Trump:

    O’Reilly: Trump University Judge ‘Should Recuse Himself’

    No question there is a political component to the legal action, as the law firm behind the class-action lawsuits often helps the Democratic Party. In fact, the firm has paid Bill and Hillary Clinton a combined $675,000 for speeches since 2009 according to the website Lawnewz.com. That makes the legal action look like a political hit job, as it is likely the law firm is working on contingency.

    Mr. Trump is correct to be indignant and defend himself vigorously. But part of that defense included a negative personal assessment of the judge in the case, a Mexican-American named Gonzalo Curiel:

    (Snip)

    Although appointed by Barack Obama, Judge Curiel is no raging liberal. In fact, he’s a tough guy. At one point, a Mexican drug cartel threatened to assassinate him because of his anti-drug trafficking stance. However, the judge belongs to a group called San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, which does advocacy work on behalf of Latinos.

    It’s not associated with the radical La Raza group but confusion is understandable. Because of that, Mr. Trump believes the judge may be biased against him, as it is well known that the candidate has taken a strong stand against illegal immigration, including building a border wall.

    Summing up, the Trump U. case is certainly political to some extent and a very high-profile situation. Because of that, Talking Points believes the judge should recuse himself not because he did anything wrong – he did not – but to eliminate any doubt as to motivation in rulings.

    There are plenty of federal judges that could step in. It is valid that some may see any recusal as caving to intimidation, but stark justice at this level trumps (pardon the pun) any theoretical argument.

    And that’s the memo.

  18. 23

    Ditto

    Oh, and remember the violence in San Jose, where police allowed Trump protesters to assault Trump supporters?:

    San Jose Police Chief Who Admits ALLOWING ATTACKS on Trump Supporters is Affiliated With La Raza

    (Snip)

    What has gone largely unreported, is that police chief Eddie Garcia is affiliated with the far left group La Raza.

    The La Raza Roundtable of California celebrated when Garcia was sworn in.

    This is how the Roundtable describes itself:

    La Raza Roundtable brings together community organizations, community leaders, elected officials, private and public sector representatives in leadership capacities that can impact positive change for La Raza.

    Garcia has released a laughable statement in which he suggests that the police didn’t arrest the violent thugs because it would have just made them angrier. From San Jose Inside:

    Mayor Liccardo, San Jose Police Issue New Statements Regarding Violence at Donald Trump Rally

    San Jose police issued their own media advisory Friday, noting what actions it took as the media gives closer scrutiny to how well the department conducted crowd control.

    In its release, SJPD said it held off in arresting people seen committing crimes because it “had the difficult task of weighing the need to immediately apprehend the suspect(s) against the possibility that police action involving the use of physical force under the circumstances would further insight [incite] the crowd and produce more violent behavior.”

    (Snip)

    It’s becoming increasingly clear that the decision not to enforce law and order was a political one. The fact that the police chief is associated with La Raza raises red flags.

    I concur.

  19. 24

    Nanny G

    @retire05: Where are the court records of Trump’s attorneys appealing the judge’s decisions? Where are the court records of Trump’s attorneys seeking the removal of the judge in the Trump U case? I would certainly like to read those transcripts.

    http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/whoops-judge-mistakenly-unsealed-too-many-records-in-trump-u-lawsuit/

    “Gonzalo Curiel ordered the release of a number of documents in the Trump University lawsuit that had previously been sealed. The release caused a mini-media storm with news outlets, including LawNewz.com, spending time reporting on the contents of the various documents.

    However, late on Tuesday, Judge Curiel entered new order that essentially tries to put the toothpaste back in the tube after realizing he had ‘mistakenly’ allowed certain documents to be unsealed without proper redactions, including for personal information.”
    …..
    [S]everal media outlets already obtained and posted the unredacted versions online.

    Bad judge.

  20. 25

    Greg

    Many Trump supporters don’t believe his wildest promises — and they don’t care

    “Trump says a lot of things right off the cuff. Does he mean it to the ‘T’? I don’t think so,” said Dennis Kerns, 55, a retired ­elementary-school teacher who lives near Albuquerque and came to the rally with his wife. “When he talks about bombing ISIS and all of that — his advisers aren’t going to let him go off half-cocked and bomb here and bomb there.”

    He added: “I think if he strengthens the borders . . . it will be the same as building the wall. So the wall’s still there, it’s just invisible. It might be 10 feet tall, it might be 20 feet tall, but it’s invisible. So the wall can be built even without having to be built.”

    How can anyone argue with that? Now it all makes perfect sense. You don’t actually have to do things. You just have to say you’re going to do things.

    Unfortunately, the presidential election isn’t fantasy football.

  21. 26

    Nanny G

    @Greg:
    That’s a really perceptive comment, Greg.
    It is true that Donald Trump speaks in hyperbole.
    In that his exaggerations are different in kind, not degree, from, say, Obama’s.
    When Obama said he was for keeping marriage between a man and a woman, his alternate marriage proponents knew he was just lying to get elected.
    When he claimed to have ”evolved” on that issue, his gay marriage supporters knew code when they heard it.
    When Obama said he was Israel’s best friend, his Israel-hating supporters knew he was just saying that to get elected.
    Example:

    As he [Obama] came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, “Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.” He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, “Keep up the good work!”

    Donald Trump, otoh, stretches time all the time.
    Big Crime!
    His endorsement from 3 weeks ago was really from 6 weeks ago. His phone call from 4 months ago was really from over a year ago.
    You can catch numerous of these in his off the cuff speeches.
    As to ”the wall,” Trump is using hyberbola to make his point that the border will be secured.
    This is something our laws and budget already allow for.
    We just don’t do it.
    Our Border Patrol say they are ordered to stand down.
    That’s not following written law.
    Our Homeland Security is bussing illegals into the interior of this country.
    That’s also not following written law.
    IF a new president simply begins following written law about border policy, it will seem like a wall has gone up overnight.
    However, our so-called border is in bad shape.
    In some places a physical wall might also be advisable.

  22. 27

    retire05

    @Nanny G:

    Did you miss the questions? Here they are again:

    Trump obtained his degree in law where?

    Where are the court records of Trump’s attorneys appealing the judge’s decisions? Where are the court records of Trump’s attorneys seeking the removal of the judge in the Trump U case? I would certainly like to read those transcripts.

    Instead, you go completely off on another issue, obviously not wanting to answer my questions directly.

    “Actions speak louder than Trump: His own lawyer said “the judge is doing his job” in Trump U. case

    June 6, 206, Just three weeks before Donald Trump triggered a national firestorm over his claims that U.S. Judge Gonzalo Curiel was biased against him because of his Mexican heritage, his lead lawyer in the Trump University case praised Curiel for a “sound decision” and said he had no plans to file a motion for him to be recused.

    “The judge is doing his job,” said Daniel Petrocelli, shaking his head, when asked if planned to seek Curiel’s recusal. “We’re not seeking to recuse the judge.

    Petrocelli, a renowned civil litigator who has spearheaded Trump’s defense in the Trump University case, praised Curiel after the May 6 hearing and for good reason: The judge had arguably done Trump a huge favor. The plaintiffs in the case, who claim they were defrauded out of tens of thousands of dollars they paid for Trump University seminars they say were largely worthless, had pushed for a trial date this summer in the 6-year-old case — right after the Republican Party convention. “Justice delayed is justice denied,” Jason Forge, one of the plaintiff’s lawyers, had argued to Curiel that day. “There are people who are still paying off their debts for the money they paid to Trump University.”

    But Curiel rejected that argument and pushed the trial back to Nov. 28 so as not to interfere with Trump’s campaign for president. It was no small break for the presumptive GOP candidate, since he is the lead defendant in the case and would likely be the chief witness in a trial that is expected to last at least a month.

    Although Petrocelli had sought a trial date in February — by which time Trump, if he wins the election, would actually be president — he praised Curiel’s ruling that day. “We’re pleased that this case is not going to trial [while] Mr. Trump is preparing for the presidential election,” he told reporters outside the courtroom. “We think that’s a sound decision by the court.”

    Seems the judge has been more than fair to The Donald, at least according to his lead attorney. And Heaven forbid that you ever admit that Trump is nothing more than a big-mouthed disaster.

  23. 28

    Dreadnought

    @Greg:

    How can anyone argue with that? Now it all makes perfect sense. You don’t actually have to do things. You just have to say you’re going to do things.

    Like any businessman, Trump declares what he wants in a perfect world. Build a wall, balance trade with China, Mexico etc. Those are his opening positions. When he sits down with Congress, like in any business negotiation, he’s going to give up some of what he wants in return for getting the rest.

    Which means that if Trump gets elected, Trump supporters do not actually expect that the Mexican border will be completely secure – but we will expect that the border is significantly and measurably more secure, and illegal crossings are significantly more difficult, and hiring of illegals entails more enforced penalties with teeth.

    Ditto on trade. I don’t expect him to actually balance trade with China. But I do expect us to get a better deal than what we have today.

  24. 29

    retire05

    @Nanny G:

    It is true that Donald Trump speaks in hyperbole.
    In that his exaggerations are different in kind, not degree, from, say, Obama’s.

    My God, Nan, have you lost what little sense God gave you? A lie is a lie, no matter how you frame it.

    Trump is going to build a wall? How? With whose money? Does he have the Constitutional authority to go over Congress’s head and grant a contract for such construction? Is he going to violate the 10th Amendment or use Kelo to confiscate land from Texas land owners whose land rights extend all the way to the banks of the Rio Grande?

  25. 30

    Ditto

    La Raza Judge Gonzalo Curiel and the Hispanic National Bar Association…

    The curriculum vitae of Trump University Judge Gonzalo Curiel specifically mentions his affiliation with the Hispanic National Bar Association, or HNBA.

    The Hispanic National Bar Association published a press release on July 2nd 2015 which specifically stated their intention to target the “business interests” of Donald Trump:

    Full July 2nd Press Release available HERE

    Now, I doubt you could find a more conformational reason for Donald Trump to be concerned about a Judge overseeing the Trump University lawsuit, which everyone admits is based on some sketchy legal standing, than Judge Curiel specifically belonging to a legal enterprise of affiliates who have clearly stated their intent to target Trump’s business interests.

    Recap:

    * The attorney group leading the lawsuit against Trump are heavily involved in Democrat politics and have paid Bill and Hillary Clinton $675,000 for “speeches”. (link)

    * The Judge in the lawsuit is an open borders immigration activist with direct ties to San Diego La Raza, and has openly engaged with them on their political endeavors. (link) and (link) including scholarships for illegal aliens.

    * The Trump lawsuit relies (in part) on testimony from a former disgruntled employee of the Trump Organization who went to work for notorious #NeverTrump activist Glenn Beck. (link)

    * The Judge then “accidentally” releases court records which provides the media with the names, locations, and contact information of the plaintiffs and witnesses in the case, which fuels the media narrative. (link)

    * After the “mistaken” release, Judge Curiel reseals the court records. (link)

    * The Judge is a member of an ethnic legal group, HNBA, whose specific and publicly expressed intentions are to target Donald Trump’s business interests (link)

    The Judge clearly should recuse himself simply on the grounds that he has a conflict of interest that justifiably raises the question of bias and conflict of interest.

    Judicial Disqualification Resource Center:
    Grounds for Recusal

    Motions to recuse or disqualify judges and other adjudicators have been made for all sorts of reasons. Most commonly such motions are predicated upon a claim that the judge is biased in favor of one party, or against another, or that a reasonable objective observer would think he might be. But such motions are also made on many other grounds, including the challenged judge’s:

    ● Interest in the subject matter, or relationship with someone who is interested in it

    Background or experience, such as the judge’s prior work as a lawyer

    Personal knowledge about the parties or the facts of the case

    Ex parte communications with lawyers or non-lawyers

    ● Rulings, comments or conduct

    In some jurisdictions the ability of a judge to recuse himself is constrained by the so-called “duty to sit doctrine”. According to this doctrine, unless a judge is required by law to disqualify himself he cannot simply choose to recuse himself, but must remain on the case.

    In most American jurisdictions a judge may only be disqualified “for cause.” In other words, a person who would like a new judge to preside over her case is required to show either that a basis for disqualification exists that is expressly enumerated in A disqualification statute; or that, for some other reason, a reasonable person would question the judge’s ability to be impartial in the case. But many (mostly western and mid-western) jurisdictions have laws on the books which authorize parties to seek disqualification on a “peremptory” basis, without making any showing of cause. This is referred to as “peremptory disqualification,” or making a “peremptory challenge” . In such jurisdictions, as long as the challenge is timely filed, and the prescribed procedure is complied with, the judge has no discretion to determine whether he should recuse himself; rather, he is disqualified automatically.


    DECIDING RECUSAL MOTIONS:WHO JUDGES THE JUDGES?

    Judicial impartiality is a significant element of justice. Judges should decide legal disputes free of any personal bias or prejudice. As a result of a conflict of interest, a judge may
    be unable to maintain impartiality in a case and thus should be disqualified. Even where a judge is impartial, but appears not to be, recusal is necessary. To promote the goal of judicial impartiality, most states have adopted the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct.’ The Code prescribes disqualification for judges who recognize the existence of a conflict of interest, or who encounter allegations
    of a conflict of interest in a motion to disqualify.

    Justice must be blind and impartial to be fair and just.

  26. 31

    Ditto

    Why Donald Trump Has the Perfect Presidential Temperament (Part 1)

    The United States of America is poised for the greatest, most necessary, and vital transformation in decades, and Trump’s temperament falls into the same category as such history-making former presidents as Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Ronald Reagan.

    How do I know? Simple. Mr. Trump, at my request, took the Keirsey Presidential Temperament Evaluation; an unbiased assessment tool used to evaluate the temperament of 41 presidents.

    Trump’s Keirsey Presidential Evaluation revealed that he is a master of the practical; he eschews “social approval” and instead strives to find and implement solutions that work; he’s astutely aware of reality; he prefers concrete tactical solutions to abstract concepts; and he values “doing the right thing in the right way at the right time.” If diplomacy has a tactical purpose, he’ll make it a priority.

    So, how does Trump compare to some of these former presidents? Let’s start with personality descriptions of JFK and LBJ. Johnson lacked Kennedy’s East Coast breeding, social connections, and urbane style, wit, and grace. Johnson was more like an axe, preferring to be brazen and pugnacious. Compared to Kennedy, LBJ was considered rude, unpolished, and sometimes cunning.

    Many political wonks and historians agree that Kennedy and Johnson were powerful politicians who understood the game and played it energetically, shrewdly, and unflinchingly. Both were crafty, hard-working opportunists, able to use any event to accomplish a goal. Kennedy and Johnson could be equally underhanded, unprincipled, scheming, brazen, and downright dirty in the way they played the game of politics.

    History shows Kennedy and Johnson shared more similarities when it came to getting the job done. They were both disinterested in ideas that did not have a practical application to their immediate objectives. Kennedy had a special tactical prowess coupled with subtlety and dexterity, deceit, and seduction. And Johnson once said of himself, ‘’I’m just like a fox. I can see the jugular in any man and go for it, but I always keep myself in rein. I keep myself on a leash, just like you would an animal.”

    Louis Banks, managing editor of Fortune, said of Kennedy, “He is a man completely and vigorously engaged in events of the moment. Thus he regards his past acts as more or less an irrelevant prologue; his future acts as something to be determined under future circumstances.”

    It was their temperament that led to their success. Like it or not, the Keirsey Presidential Evaluation reveals that Trump has the same temperament as these arguably successful past presidents. Presenting a vision for our country’s future, which focuses on the present issues, is one of the strongest qualities Trump shares with Kennedy and Johnson. Kennedy launched the first modern presidential campaign and tapped into popular culture using the exciting new medium of television. With grand ambition, Johnson launched sweeping social programs, public radio and television.

    Donald Trump’s prescient concerns for our country have been consistent. He underscored and predicted in 1988 that the USA could not be a debtor nation. As Mr. Trump said to Oprah, ‘’I get tired of watching our nation being ripped off.’’ Though his focus was then on Japan and now it is China, the same exact point holds true: these countries sell their products to Americans but free trade is a misnomer.

    Scrutinizing the temperaments and characteristics of past presidents, it’s clear that what some pundits consider Trump’s weaknesses are actually evidence of his deeply ingrained principles: love of country, a desire to impact others in a positive way, a realistic grasp on how the world really works, and a strong mission to get things done.

    One thing is certain: Trump has keen instincts and will survive setbacks which might leave other candidates’ immobilized. But win or lose, succeed or fail, you can count on a President Trump to be adaptable and to roll with the punches and land on his feet. He always has and he always will. And isn’t that what we want in the President of the United States? Especially now.

    Why Donald Trump Has the Perfect Presidential Temperament, Part II

    Everyone says Donald Trump is crazy, so I decided to test their theory and challenge the assumption that he is made of the wrong temperament. I run Republicans Overseas in the UK; we have to process the Trump victory; we think he’s being misrepresented.

    The political elite, along with the media and their regular pundits, have been so busy picking on words — evaluating Trump according to their own personal standards — that they keep missing what is happening before their eyes. Across the board, no matter the group, they have applied their own elitist standards of how one should behave and how one should speak.

    No matter how wrong they have been, it seems they care more about being right than analysing how our culture has changed and how the voters have spoken. At least CNN’s Quest for Business attempted to attribute the demise of our culture going all the way back to Jerry Springer.

    The main criticism of Trump is his personality, not his temperament. Trump’s personality and tone do offend some people; however, after knocking out 16 competitors, perhaps these critics might have been better served analysing his successes rather than judging his behavior.

    So, for those who want to understand Trump’s temperament, they would be best served by comparing him to history-making former presidents, such as: Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Ronald Reagan.

    For each and every President, it was their temperament that led to their success. Like it or not, the Keirsey Presidential Evaluation reveals that Trump has the same temperament as these arguably successful past presidents. Scrutinizing the temperaments and characteristics of past presidents shows every one of them thrived on action, risks, challenges, and change.

    While Franklin Roosevelt was not a long-term strategist, he was a prodigal tactician with a very clever ability to influence people and immediate events with an extraordinary sense of timing. Many political wonks and historians agree that Kennedy and Johnson were powerful politicians who understood the game and played it energetically, shrewdly, and unflinchingly. Both were crafty, hard-working opportunists, able to use any event to accomplish a goal. Clearly the same can be said of Trump.

    Fairness never played a role in FDR’s temperament. In the book Eleanor and Franklin, the former First Lady revealed, ‘’The President used those who suited his purposes. He made up his own mind and discarded people when they no longer fulfilled a purpose of his.’’ Even when he had nothing at stake, Franklin often would be devious simply for the pleasure of it.

    Kennedy and Johnson could be equally underhanded, unprincipled, scheming, brazen, and downright dirty in the way they played the game of politics. Both JFK and LBJ were accused of being womanizers. FDR used people and cast them aside like paper napkins. JFK acted secretly during the Cuban Missile crisis, as did Reagan in the Iran-Contra affair. Sometimes these presidents were considered impulsive, even reckless. But each man served the United States during a time of complexity, great turmoil, and social upheaval. No president has ever proved to be a saint.

    Like Trump, Reagan was accused of being loyal to a fault. Reagan genuinely fretted when he had to reprimand or fire anyone he knew or liked. Trump stood by his campaign manager in the Michelle Fields brouhaha. Calling for Trump to fire Corey Lewandowski can only be deemed as an extremely self-preserving act. Standing by Lewandowski proved the right, loyal, and fair decision.

    When Trump declared the primary process was rigged, Cruz, Kasich, and the pundits tagged Trump as a “whiner.” However, rather than picking on words or tone, they would have recognised one of Trump’s strongest characteristics – his desire to ensure fairness in execution and implementation applied equally to all.

    Theodore Roosevelt’s interest in fairness, honesty, and support of “the little guy’’ appealed to most Americans. Reagan was, and Trump is, an egalitarian. This strong belief in the principle that all people deserve equal rights and opportunity is somehow confusing the Conservative wing of the Republican Party. Reagan’s goal was the same as Trump’s – slice the fat out of the monstrous Washington bureaucracy. But not at the expense of citizens.

    Mastering the mediums of the modern world changed how politicians connected with citizens. PR acumen served the political agendas of both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt. They had a powerful ability to use the press to communicate directly with people. However, Franklin had a new medium – the radio – which took his message directly into the homes of Americans and which he used brilliantly to persuade voters without being edited by the newspapers. JFK did the same, only with television. He used TV to run a cutthroat, negative and cruel TV media campaign successfully exposing Nixon’s weaknesses.

    It’s not really a surprise that in 2016 Trump took campaign communications to new heights, employing social media and a fearless use of Twitter to connect directly to potential voters and expose his opponents’ weaknesses. Most pundits agree: Trump rewrote the book on American politics. It will never be the same.

    Reagan entered and occupied the Oval Office with a disarmingly simple agenda consisting of three objectives – release the entrepreneur from government bondage, restrict the size and activity of the federal government, and get tough with the “evil empire.’’

    Should he win, Trump would enter the Oval Office with four straightforward proposals: put America first and rebuild her strength economically and militarily, use beneficial trade policies putting America first; solve the immigration crisis; and change our tax structure to bring money back to America.

    Finally, Trump’s most noticeable characteristic is based on his ability to adapt swiftly to changing circumstances and to alter his behavior in the moment in order to operate effectively in the most unstable situations. It’s clear that what some pundits consider Trump’s weaknesses are actually evidence of his deeply ingrained principles: love of country, a desire to impact others in a positive way, a realistic grasp on how the world really works, and a strong mission to get things done.

    So, let’s finally put this criticism of Trump’s temperament to rest. His temperament is exactly what our country needs at this critical time in our history.

  27. 32

    Pete

    Again, I want to bring up all the hoopla over the loyalty pledge the GOP insisted on around the time of the first debate. At the time, all the talking heads were absolutely confident that there was no way Trump would be able to win the nomination, and all the candidates were pressured to agree to support whoever won the delegate count. The concern was that when Trump lost, he would run 3rd party, thus giving the election to Hillary.

    Well, much to my chagrin – as well as to the anti-Trump talking heads – Trump has won the required number of delegates. The GOPe made this bed, and now are doing all kinds of propaganda gymnastics to avoid having to abide by the loyalty pledge that THEY devised. Had a different candidate won, and Trump acted the way the GOPe are acting now, we would hear no end of howls from the GOPe about Trump’s disloyalty to the party, and his lack of integrity.

    I am not a Trump fan. My candidate (Cruz) lost. Trump won. How does the behavior of the GOPe in undermining the winner of the GOP nomination in favor of the contemptibly corrupt Clinton demonstrate anything other than the reeking hypocrisy that defines the left? It is complete insanity – veritable political suicide – to think for a moment that sabotaging Trump will result in anything other than a Clinton victory compounded with an electoral change of Congress from GOP to leftist majority. (Note I did not say ‘conservative to leftist majority’ as McConnell and Ryan have done almost nothing – short of refusing a vote on filling Scalia’s SCOTUS seat – to engender conservative policy enactment.)

    The level of political corruption we would witness should Hillary win the Oval Office can be seen by the laughable claim from the federal government that it would require 75 YEARS to produce Hillary’s emails. Really? It only took 66 years to go from the first heavier than air flight to landing men on the moon. It only took 6 years to defeat the Nazis. But recovering emails from an inept criminal, we are to believe, will take the federal government 75 years?

    Say what you will about Trump’s demeanor. Regardless, I cannot imagine a worse fate for the republic than a Hillary presidency.

  28. 33

    Greg

    House Republicans to roll out national security agenda

    The House GOP leadership will formally roll out its policy agenda for national security on Thursday, which will serve as a blueprint for the party leading up to, and beyond November’s presidential elections.

    Sure it will, Paul. Donald Trump is going to be reined in by the GOP establishment, and, once elected, will quietly go along with whatever you guys decide is right. We’ve seen so much evidence of that, haven’t we?

    Here’s my prediction: He’ll play your game for however long it’s necessary to get to the point where he no longer has to.

    “We have learned the hard way that the world is a more volatile place without American leadership. That’s why House Republicans this week are releasing a bold agenda to undo the damage of the past eight years, strengthen our national security and reaffirm our country’s role in the world,” said an op-ed on Wednesday by House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in advance of the rollout.

    You have yet to learn anything at all, if you imagine Donald Trump’s ego will deflate to normal size if he’s given charge of the Oval Office. It would be like throwing kerosene on a fire expecting to put it out.

  29. 34

    Ditto

    @Greg:

    Seeing as the White House was large enough for Obama’s ego, it’s certainly big enough for Trump’s.

    Here’s my prediction: He’ll play your game for however long it’s necessary to get to the point where he no longer has to.

    The House is more than welcome to come up with a national security policy agenda, as is the Senate. But, you know as well as I do that the Executive Branch is the final word on National security policy.

    Greg ‘s “prediction” is what you call a “sure thing” because that is how the Constitution meant for national security to work. Greg’s “prediction” deserves a big “Duh!” That’s why the President is called the “Commander in Chief”.

    Greg worries about Trump, but he completely ignores how Obama (as CiC) has completely undermined our national security. Obama has been gutting the military portion of our national security, and he has redirected the super-spook agencies to spying on US citizenry instead of terrorists. Obama is making the border patrol play baby-sitter and removing all border protection so that illegal aliens, criminal cartels and terrorists can easily enter , (not only that, but Emperor Obama will give them sanctuary, and thousands in freebies while they plot their attacks). Obama has also been the most anti-Fourth Amendment president in history.

    Yeah, but who is it that Greg worries about? That the ineffective wimpy GOPe and Trump might take our national security seriously.

  30. 35

    Ditto

    @Pete:

    How does the behavior of the GOPe in undermining the winner of the GOP nomination in favor of the contemptibly corrupt Clinton demonstrate anything other than the reeking hypocrisy that defines the left?

    As I’ve said before, I am fairly convinced that a good many of the GOPe are closet Democrats, who only became Republican out of expediency, in order to run as Republicans and infiltrate the party. I’m certain the same thing happened with some of the TEA Party candidates. They only pretended to support the platforms, lying to win the office.. There actions in “compromising by giving in to Obama and the Democrats, while torpedoing conservative candidates, and undermining conservative positions.

  31. 36

    Greg

    @Ditto, #34:

    Seeing as the White House was large enough for Obama’s ego, it’s certainly big enough for Trump’s.

    The enormous size of Obama’s ego is a conservative myth. I’ve never seen evidence of anything more than a healthy level of self confidence and an assertive personality, both of which are required of a President of the United States. You’ve talked about narcissism for over 7 years as if you knew what the word meant, but don’t recognize it in Donald Trump when it’s there for the whole world to see every time he stands at a podium.

    Half of the time people claim Obama is pathetically weak and ineffectual, while claiming the other half of the time that he’s an egotistical tyrant who somehow overpowers all other branches of government, essentially paralyzing a well-meaning republican-controlled Congress that would do exactly what needs to be done, if it weren’t for him. Make your minds up. You can’t have it both ways.

  32. 37

    Redteam

    @retire05: 27

    Trump obtained his degree in law where?

    Where are the court records of Trump’s attorneys appealing the judge’s decisions? Where are the court records of Trump’s attorneys seeking the removal of the judge in the Trump U case? I would certainly like to read those transcripts.

    Funny how that works. Where is Obama’s law degree? Where is his university degree? Where is his citizenship after living in Indonesia? Why can’t we find out why he has a used Social Security number? Where is Ted Cruz’s birth certificate? Where is Ted Cruz’s official denouncement of his Cuban and Canadian citizenship? Why does someone only care if Trump is legal or not when no one gives a damn about all these other people.

    I would think that all of the KNOWN details of the Judge in the Trump case would be far more than is necessary for a recusal. Well, unless one were to choose to ignore the facts.

  33. 38

    Redteam

    @Greg:

    Half of the time people claim Obama is pathetically weak and ineffectual, while claiming the other half of the time that he’s an egotistical tyrant

    It is not both ways, he is now and has always been pathetic. If he ever figures out how to read a teleprompter, he might start making sense just reading what someone else writes.

  34. 39

    Ditto

    @Greg:

    The enormous size of Obama’s ego is a conservative myth. I’ve never seen evidence of anything more than a healthy level of self confidence and an assertive personality,…

    Spare us your partisan BS. If you haven’t noticed Obama’s enormous ego, it’s only because your head is too far up his ass.

    …Obama is pathetically weak and ineffectual, while claiming the other half of the time that he’s an egotistical tyrant who somehow overpowers all other branches of government…You can’t have it both ways.

    Yes, we can have it both ways because of where Obama has been weak, has been in his defense of this nation, in how he represents this nation,in his treatment of our allies, in his giving in to Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, his foreign terrorism policies, in enforcing our immigration laws, in upholding the rule of law. In all other things he has been a tyrannical despot who refuses to be bound by Constitutional limits.

    , essentially paralyzing a well-meaning republican-controlled Congress that would do exactly what needs to be done,

    Wrong there. The GOPe leadership has been neither well-meaning nor paralyzed. They too are establishment-progressives, who have only given token resistance while acceding to most of the establishment progressive agenda. But the public is on to that game, hence the rise of Trump and Sanders.

  35. 40

    Greg

    @Ditto, #39:

    Sanders’ positions, which he has been outspoken about for years, are at home within the greater context of the Democratic Party philosophy. He’s not perceived by most democrats as an outsider. He’s one of the available Democratic Party choices, and has been very popular as such. This isn’t much different than the previous choice, which was between Obama and Clinton.

    The GOP, on the other hand, doesn’t know what Trump’s positions actually are. They’ve changed as his needs have shifted, sometimes doing a 180 degree turn on a dime. Calling himself a republican wasn’t a philosophical choice. It was an opportunistic move. You don’t know what he really is. At this point, nobody does.

    I think he believes he should be president because he’s Donald Trump. The Oval Office is the ultimate trophy.

  36. 41

    kitt

    Pinning Trump down on agenda and policies has proven impossible, but the policies and agenda of Hillary are down right frightening. 30 % of our uranium to the Russians, the land was grabbed by the BLM in Oregon, shortly after over 2 million dropped into the Clinton Foundation. Destruction of the 2nd amendment, refusal to release transcripts of her very lucrative speeches to powerful wall street firms. The complete lack of transparency she flaunts.
    She has honed her persona since she was fired from the Watergate investigation. If she could only speak the truth I believe she would have her jaws wired shut and her lips sewn up.

  37. 42

    Wordsmith

    editor

    @Ditto #35:

    As I’ve said before, I am fairly convinced that a good many of the GOPe are closet Democrats, who only became Republican out of expediency, in order to run as Republicans and infiltrate the party

    Anyone else see the delicious irony in this?.

  38. 43

    Redteam

    @Wordsmith:

    I am fairly convinced that a good many of the GOPe are closet Democrats, who only became Republican out of expediency,

    For example: Paul Ryan
    Marco Rubio
    John McCain
    Mitch McConnell
    Lindsay Graham
    etc:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *