2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Trump orders his surrogates to double down on the criticism of the judge from Indiana:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-06/trump-orders-surrogates-to-intensify-criticism-of-judge-and-journalists
Quote:A clearly irritated Trump told his supporters to attack journalists who ask questions about the lawsuit and his comments about the judge.
"The people asking the questions—those are the racists," Trump said. "I would go at 'em."
We've got members here like AZDuffman who think false charges of racism get thrown around too much. Well, hopefully they realize that their candidate, John MillerDonald Trump, is a major perpetrator of such false charges.
Whomever you're quoting is uninformed:Quote: onalinehorseWhere have you been ? " Cruz is not far behind Trump in his anti-immigrants, anti-Muslims rhetoric. He has said repeatedly that he supports rounding up and deporting undocumented immigrants "
not agreeing with the above statement, but some of the biggest racist's I have known are minorities.
"Plans pushed by GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz under the immigration reform debate in 2013 that would have jumped the number of immigrants, including those from Muslim nations, were raised by the Trump campaign Tuesday. Under the Cruz plan, yearly legal immigration would have gone from 740,000 to 1,675,000. He said his idea was to actually help kill the bill not boost the numbers. . . .
Secrets recently reported that the administration has approved more immigrants from Muslim nations over the next five years than the entire population of Washington, D.C. Figures from the Department of Homeland Security show that the president has already issued 680,000 green cards to immigrants from Muslim nations over the past five years. Unless Congress changes his policy, that number will be repeated in the next five years.
Under the Cruz amendments, shown in full below, the yearly cap on green cards would have increased from 675,000 to 1.35 million, not including refugees and asylums." Washington Examiner
Only for those who insist on classifying Mexicans as a "race," but not, say, Syrians or Somalis or Yemeni.Quote: RonCIs not wanting illegal aliens and un-vetted Muslims in our country racist?
(not a question specifically for you; I am just wondering overall...)
Then why do the U.S. government's current immigration policies allow millions to cross the borders with impunity and without deportation?Quote: ams288It's a silly question.
You couldn't find any politician who is for letting anyone (Muslim, Christian, atheist, etc) into the country who they have "no info" on.
Quote: SanchoPanzaFarm from all Republicans subscribe to expansive government and increased partisan government controls like the E.P.A. and I.R.S. Let's see your version of "Marxism."
The vast majority are just fine with the DEA, homeland security, a bloated military, endless war, mass incarceration, etc. All of that costs tons of money. They just prefer to pay for it with debt.
"My" version of Marxism is something like: "the views espoused by Karl Marx and his adherents."
Some Dems favor a very moderately progressive income tax (along with regressive taxation in other areas). People like Warren Buffet agree with this view. FDR and Ike favored a far more progressive income tax than anything dems in the HRC wing favor. The top income tax bracket under Ike paid 90%.
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/under-eisenhower-the-top-tax-rate-was-91-percent-was-he-a-socialist
Karl Marx believed it was a historical inevitability that the working class would overthrow capitalism via revolution and that workers would take over the means of production and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, which would melt away as we moved into a truly communist society.
Hillary Clinton is a former corporate lawyer and boardmemer of Wal Mart whose family has accepted well over $100 million in personal payments from big business and who runs campaigns financed by big business. The Clintons cut welfare, spearheaded NAFTA and oversaw a huge increase in the prison population. At the behest of banks and credit card companies, Hillary voted to cut bankruptcy protections for consumers, etc. etc.
FWIW, Mussolini said that the definition of fascism is the marriage of government and the corporation.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThen why do the U.S. government's current immigration policies allow millions to cross the borders with impunity and without deportation?
I dunno. Maybe the gov't just wants to piss the anti-Mexican racists off.
I'm just spitballing here.
Quote: RonCYou ask. They could lie. You investigate them. The issue appears to be the lack of info to research to check most of their backgrounds. I am for keeping them out until we know more about them.
How do you investigate someone's religion?
I'm an atheist?
How do I prove I am an atheist?
My parents were atheists
Growing up as a child in New Haven, we belonged to a church social club.
Yale Chinese students Christian club. We met in a church after the services.
It was a social club we attended every week to get together with other Chinese Yale graduate students going for higher degrees such as PHD
Research would show my family were Christians when in reality, we were atheists.
I have a copy of the Koran and Bible in my house yet I am an atheist.
How do you investigate my mind?
If the govt asked me what my religion is, I would say FU, its nobody's business but mine
Quote: terapinedHow do you investigate someone's religion?
I'm an atheist?
How do I prove I am an atheist?
My parents were atheists
Growing up as a child in New Haven, we belonged to a church social club.
Yale Chinese students Christian club. We met in a church after the services.
It was a social club we attended every week to get together with other Chinese Yale graduate students going for higher degrees such as PHD
Research would show my family were Christians when in reality, we were atheists.
I have a copy of the Koran and Bible in my house yet I am an atheist.
How do you investigate my mind?
You investigate the person, obviously.
Quote: ams288It's a silly question.
Whatever.
Quote: RonCYou investigate the person, obviously.
Lets say I don't post here
Somebody comes over to my house and sees my Koran
I book tons of International travel including many Muslim Engineers and executives
Lets say the govt decides to investigate me
How would they determine my religion from an investigation?
My religious beliefs reside in my head.
And then, if you suspect they're Muslim, you deny them entry? You're not actually joining Trump in advocating that, are you?Quote: RonCYou investigate the person, obviously.
Quote: MathExtremistAnd then, if you suspect they're Muslim, you deny them entry? You're not actually joining Trump in advocating that, are you?
Lets say you think you are able to prove somebody is a Muslim
Changing religions can be done in a blink of an eye
I can get up tomorrow and declare myself a born again Christian
I'm a Christian now
I have a Koran
I may pick it up again and declare myself a Muslim
Muhammad Ali became a Muslim in the blink of an eye
I just don't want anyone letting in thousands of people who have not been properly investigated. Of course, that is what we do at the border already...which I want to stop...but I don't believe we need a wall. We need a real immigration policy.
Quote: terapinedI can get up tomorrow and declare myself a born again Christian
I'm a Christian now
I hate to derail the thread, and I'll split it off if this tangent goes more than a few posts, but most protestants would agree that as long as you say something like the Sinner's Prayer, you're good. Other denominations may require baptism and/or speaking in tongues. I think to convert to the LDS church you have to go through some classes and be baptized, correct me if I'm wrong.
In my personal opinion, I think any religion should require a convert to have a basic understanding of the principles and beliefs first. The conversion scene in the movie Borat really bothered me.
Quote: RonCI am advocating not letting ANYONE in without properly investigating their background. Good investigators will either get the information from the subject about religion or find out about it some other way in the course of the investigation. For some people, they might not find out. Other people might lie. Good investigators can cut through a lot of that. Investigations aren't perfect, of course, but just letting people in willy nilly is just plain stupid. When in doubt, keep them out. Try to find out more. Review their case again. If there is still doubt, they stay out.
I just don't want anyone letting in thousands of people who have not been properly investigated. Of course, that is what we do at the border already...which I want to stop...but I don't believe we need a wall. We need a real immigration policy.
Say somebody like Casius Clay is investigated and deemed a Christian
In the blink of an eye, he changes his name and is a Muslim, Muhammad Ali
That's how easy it is to change religions
Keep everybody out because anybody can become a Muslim in the blink of an eye?
Okay, simpler question: during the evaluation of an immigrant applicant, do you advocate placing any weight whatsoever on the faith of the applicant? In other words, in your ideal immigration policy, does the question of whether to allow someone into the US depend in any manner on their faith?Quote: RonCI am advocating not letting ANYONE in without properly investigating their background. Good investigators will either get the information from the subject about religion or find out about it some other way in the course of the investigation. For some people, they might not find out. Other people might lie. Good investigators can cut through a lot of that. Investigations aren't perfect, of course, but just letting people in willy nilly is just plain stupid. When in doubt, keep them out. Try to find out more. Review their case again. If there is still doubt, they stay out.
I just don't want anyone letting in thousands of people who have not been properly investigated. Of course, that is what we do at the border already...which I want to stop...but I don't believe we need a wall. We need a real immigration policy.
Quote: MathExtremistOkay, simpler question: during the evaluation of an immigrant applicant, do you advocate placing any weight whatsoever on the faith of the applicant? In other words, in your ideal immigration policy, does the question of whether to allow someone into the US depend in any manner on their faith?
I am sure as heck checking out Muslims a little extra if there are any blank spaces in their history before allowing them in...not because I dislike Muslims, but because some adherents to that religion desire our destruction. I want to avoid letting any more bad actors into our country. i am sure there enough already here.
It is preposterous to compare Roosevelt and Eisenhower to Hillary Clinton. It means ignoring a minor event like World War II, followed by the Marshall Plan and the Korean War. But don't let history and paying off such huge programs disturb the utopian imagination.Quote: RigondeauxFDR and Ike favored a far more progressive income tax than anything dems in the HRC wing favor. The top income tax bracket under Ike paid 90%.
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/under-eisenhower-the-top-tax-rate-was-91-percent-was-he-a-socialist.
If their "faith" requires the overthrow of legitimate standing governments and homicidal violence against infidels and apostates, then it would seem incumbent to consider those problems.Quote: MathExtremistOkay, simpler question: during the evaluation of an immigrant applicant, do you advocate placing any weight whatsoever on the faith of the applicant? In other words, in your ideal immigration policy, does the question of whether to allow someone into the US depend in any manner on their faith?
Quote: SanchoPanzaIf their "faith" requires the overthrow of legitimate standing governments and homicidal violence against infidels and apostates, then it would seem incumbent to consider those problems.
Muhammad Ali was a Muslim
That's your take on Ali?
Quote: RonCI asked a freaking question--did I mention Trump?
I am against illegal aliens getting into our country.
I am concerned about Muslim immigrants who we have no info on getting into our country.
I am not sure what the perfect way to process them would be to let some of them in and try to weed out bad actors.
I know it isn't to just let anyone in that wants to enter.
Chill, dude...I simply asked a question...
I think something that gets overlooked in the sound byte war that is Muslim immigration, is what's been in place post-9/11. When Trump first made his no Muslim comments, some State Dept people came on to discuss how misleading it was to imply there was an open door in the first place.
They said the average visa application, even for recent refugees, was over 2 years of investigation into history, relatives, alliances, past travel, background. Many were denied based on a wide range of criteria. And it's only gotten tighter. Which is how it should be.
Can there be improvement? Almost always. But it's easy to take an isolated case and claim it's typical or indicates a larger or more general problem just to get headlines. Where is the pattern of neglect or systemic problems? We've had 2 events I know of in the last year or so; 2 radicalized US citizens in Texas who failed (and were deliberately provoked, fwiw, not that that's an excuse), and a husband and wife in San Bernadino. On that basis, Trump wants to ban 1.5 BILLION people. WTF, over?
So domestic terror incidents from immigrants been rarer than plane crashes (again, post 9/11). And yet flying is safer than it's ever been, and remains the safest way to travel. The safest flight of all, however, is the one that never leaves the gate. But what does that accomplish?
I resent, as a Republican, that Trump plays to and escalates people's fears, whether of different races, religions, or any other demographic. This country was founded, expanded, and grown on courage, by immigrants, for more than 200 years. He represents a repudiation of everything basic to us in preaching cowardice. And at its base, that's what he's selling.
And yes, I do think this is the result of Republican disfunction. They refused to do their jobs leading Congress despite repeated voter mandates to act. The dominance of Trump in the primaries is a direct reflection of them squandering their power in petty blockades and refusal to work with any other factions to get things done.
Quote: RonCI am sure as heck checking out Muslims a little extra if there are any blank spaces in their history before allowing them in...not because I dislike Muslims, but because some adherents to that religion desire our destruction. I want to avoid letting any more bad actors into our country. i am sure there enough already here.
If some of the Republicans didn't have to pander to the racist section of their voters they could have offered a more generic solution.
Somewhat like the Voter ID laws where they pretend they are not targeting the demographic of potential democratic voters but talk about voter fraud instead.
Quote: SanchoPanzaIt is preposterous to compare Roosevelt and Eisenhower to Hillary Clinton. It means ignoring a minor event like World War II, followed by the Marshall Plan and the Korean War. But don't let history and paying off such huge programs disturb the utopian imagination.
Luckily the days of enormous military spending are ancient history.
But you are probably right. Centi millionaires who have been wall Street allies for decades, and Warren buffet are actually marxists, despite not believing the tenets of marxism.
I'm sure that fdr and Ike would now oppose progressive taxation because the wars are different or something and progressive income tax is marxism or something.
When he converted, it was to the Black Muslims, with Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X as the premier figures. That sect has been virulently racist, denouncing and demeaning other religions and asserting that God created whites solely to harass blacks. In Ali's later decades, coincident with his worsening Parkinson's, he appeared to soften quite a bit, notably expanding his humanitarian outreach while dropping virtually all the aggressive rhetoric.Quote: terapinedMuhammad Ali was a Muslim
That's your take on Ali?
Quote: SanchoPanzaWhen he converted, it was to the Black Muslims, with Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X as the premier figures. That sect has been virulently racist, denouncing and demeaning other religions and asserting that God created whites solely to harass blacks. In Ali's later decades, coincident with his worsening Parkinson's, he appeared to soften quite a bit, notably expanding his humanitarian outreach while dropping virtually all the aggressive rhetoric.
Malcolm X was a pretty cool dude once he visited Mecca
anyway
Are you Hispanic? Your handle seems to indicate it but who knows
If so
What is your take on Trump saying an American judge born and raised in Indiana cannot be impartial due to his Mexican heritage?
Quote: RonC"Finally, some have said that Trump’s criticism of the judge reflects on his qualifications to be president. If the criticism is solely based on Curiel’s race, that is something voters will take into account in deciding whether he is fit to be president. If, however, Trump is acting from a sincere motivation to protect his constitutional right to a fair trial, his willingness to exercise his rights as an American citizen and raising the issue even in the face of severe criticism is surely also something for voters to consider."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/04/alberto-r-gonzales-trump-has-a-right-to-question-whether-hes-getting-a-fair-trial/
Trump says stupid things.
I am not sure he is a racist by those statements alone...does he actually treat other races badly or does he just say stupid crap that he should be taken to task for saying?
Hillary lies. Hillary's husband lies.
Bernie never really had a chance. based on the rules
My choices are limited in this election cycle!
Perhaps your choices are limited in this election, but “there’ll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary” as recently commented by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina regarding about Trump racist remark about Mexican heritage.
.....
“This is the most un-American thing from a politician since Joe McCarthy,” Mr. Graham said. “If anybody was looking for an off-ramp, this is probably it,” he added. “There’ll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary.”
"He is a demagogue, who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator." Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking on Trump
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/04/26/6-reasons-donald-trump-isnt-fit-to-be-president-n2153631
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/stephen-hawking-just-doesnt-get-donald-trumps-presidential-run-2016-05-31
The fact that a presidential candidate would correctly want a judge to recuse himself due to his ethnicity is a sad statement on the candidate. Trump is such a weak candidate. A few more such events will make me have to consider him to possibly even be worse for the country than Mrs. Clinton.
Quote: SOOPOOAs far as the issue of Trump not wanting a Judge of Mexican decent involved in his case, well of course he doesn't! Trump's well known anti Mexican stances should make the judge want to recuse himself! Judge's will recuse themslves to avoid an appearance of bias even if no true bias would exist.
The fact that a presidential candidate would correctly want a judge to recuse himself due to his ethnicity is a sad statement on the candidate. Trump is such a weak candidate. A few more such events will make me have to consider him to possibly even be worse for the country than Mrs. Clinton.
Judges should only be recused from the case base on conflict of interest reason, but not base on one's racist, flame bait or other manipulative remarks. Using your logic, anyone can manipulate the court system and can easily get a judge that that would deem more favorable (not necessarily impartial) ...
Remember: yesterday Trump said on the conference call that reporters who ask questions about his racism over the judge are the true racists.
Just insane.
Quote: ams288As for Dems, we just need to sit back and watch this madness with the judge situation unfold.
Remember: yesterday Trump said on the conference call that reporters who ask questions about his racism over the judge are the true racists.
Just insane.
Trump's remark is deemed as racist by speaker Ryan. And by Trump's own thinking, speaker Ryan who recent endorsed Trump is now also a racist. The GOP is in a big mess.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-house-speaker-ryan-says-trump-comments-hispanic-143048946.html
Quote: SanchoPanzaIf their "faith" requires the overthrow of legitimate standing governments and homicidal violence against infidels and apostates, then it would seem incumbent to consider those problems.
I had a Muslim roommate once. He sat on the couch a lot watching soccer.
I also met a lot of Muslims overseas. They sat around a lot drinking tea and smoking cigarettes.
If someone asked me to stereotype Muslims, I would say, "Well... they seem kind of lazy..."
But seriously, most of the ones I've met were really nice people.
The definitive response as far as I am concerned comes from Judge Michael Mukasey while was sitting in judgment on Sheik Rahman for his actions in the first World Trade Center bombing. I'll try to find it for you if need be.Quote: terapinedMalcolm X was a pretty cool dude once he visited Mecca
anyway
Are you Hispanic? Your handle seems to indicate it but who knows
If so
What is your take on Trump saying an American judge born and raised in Indiana cannot be impartial due to his Mexican heritage?
I'm picturing a nose tackle who sacks the opposing quarterback, forces the fumble and picks up the ball, but he gets turned around and starts rumbling toward the end zone in the wrong direction. His teammates don't know whether to hit him or let him score for the other team. The nose tackle has never held the ball before and is just excited to score, so he can't tell that the screaming he hears is not the adulation of the crowd but his own teammates yelling at him to stop.Quote: 777Trump's remark is deemed as racist by speaker Ryan. And by Trump's own thinking, speaker Ryan who recent endorsed Trump is now also a racist. The GOP is in a big mess.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-house-speaker-ryan-says-trump-comments-hispanic-143048946.html
Up until about two days ago, none of the GOP politicians were willing to hit Trump or tell him to stop. Now they are, so let's see if they can actually knock him down and prevent the safety.
Quote: RonCNope. Wrong--I don't like the racist tone of the comment. I hear a lot of words tossed around and can't tell you if Trump is a racist or not, but it was a statement tinged in racism that should have not have been made or should have been retracted.
It would be too soon or to harsh to condemn Trump as a racist base on this single incident or comment about Mexican heritage. However, based on his pattern of behavior toward immigrants and minorities and his manipulation of the GOP crowds through out this GOP & DEM primaries, it is fair to condemn him as both a racist and demagogue.
"He is a demagogue, who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator." Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking on Trump
"Claiming a person can't do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment," Speaker of the House Paul Ryan on Trump
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/politics/hillary-clinton-nomination-2016/
Florida would be less of a concern for Hillary camp because of the demographic. And Ohio is important state toward the electoral vote count, and with this in mind, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio would be a good geographical/political choice for a VP spot (Bernie would be a good VP choice to unite the dem party, but I doubt that will happen).
Quote: 777Hillary Clinton clinches Democratic presidential nomination
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/politics/hillary-clinton-nomination-2016/
Florida would be less of a concern for Hillary camp because of the demographic. And Ohio is important state toward the electoral vote count, and with this in mind, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio would be a good geographical/political choice for a VP spot (Bernie would be a good VP choice to unite the dem party, but I doubt that will happen).
If Hillary wins Florida, Ohio doesn't matter.
I don't think there is any realistic scenario that includes Hillary winning Florida but losing the election. (Trump would have to win like Michigan and Pennsylvania - "fools gold" states for Republicans).
Quote: MathExtremistI'm picturing a nose tackle who sacks the opposing quarterback, forces the fumble and picks up the ball, but he gets turned around and starts rumbling toward the end zone in the wrong direction. His teammates don't know whether to hit him or let him score for the other team. The nose tackle has never held the ball before and is just excited to score, so he can't tell that the screaming he hears is not the adulation of the crowd but his own teammates yelling at him to stop.
Up until about two days ago, none of the GOP politicians were willing to hit Trump or tell him to stop. Now they are, so let's see if they can actually knock him down and prevent the safety.
Here is an funny quote from Elizabeth Warren:
Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat who is a firebrand for stronger regulation, said that "while most Republicans in Congress are debating not whether to run away from Trump - but how far and how fast - Congressman Hensarling is sprinting toward Trump Tower."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/republican-leader-proposes-weakening-dodd-140500671.html
But I know it's not likely.
Also, Trump has released a statement saying he "does not intend to comment" on the judge or the lawsuit any further.
Donny knows he made a boo-boo.
Quote: ams288Big news: Sen. Mark Kirk has "un-endorsed" Donald Trump over this judge stuff. He is the first one to do so. Will more follow?
Also, Trump has released a statement saying he "does not intend to comment" on the judge or the lawsuit any further.
Donny knows he made a boo-boo.
http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/sen-mark-kirk-withdraws-support-for-trump/
Below is an excerpt taken from the link above:
It is absolutely essential that we are guided by a commander-in-chief with a responsible and proper temperament, discretion and judgment. Our President must be fit to command the most powerful military the world has ever seen, including an arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons. After much consideration, I have concluded that Donald Trump has not demonstrated the temperament necessary to assume the greatest office in the world.”
Mark Kirk later elaborated his un-endorsement on Twitter:
Given my military experience, Donald Trump does not have the temperament to command our military or our nuclear arsenal. Mark's twitted at 2:39 PM - 7 Jun 2016
I'm 100% certain that the KKK will not un-endorse Trump, but there is still minute hope that the next two un-endorsements will come from Putin, and Kim Jong-Un.
I looked it up, Sen. Kirk is a decorated Naval intelligence commander (retired). The opinion of a military commander on Trump's fitness to command the military would seem perfectly on point. This will definitely turn into a Clinton ad.Quote: 777Mark Kirk later elaborated his un-endorsement on Twitter:
Given my military experience, Donald Trump does not have the temperament to command our military or our nuclear arsenal. Mark's twitted at 2:39 PM - 7 Jun 2016
Quote: SOOPOOAs far as the issue of Trump not wanting a Judge of Mexican descent involved in his case, well of course he doesn't! Trump's well known anti Mexican stances should make the judge want to recuse himself! Judge's will recuse themslves to avoid an appearance of bias even if no true bias would exist.
The fact that a presidential candidate would correctly want a judge to recuse himself due to his ethnicity is a sad statement on the candidate. Trump is such a weak candidate. A few more such events will make me have to consider him to possibly even be worse for the country than Mrs. Clinton.
Yes, Trump wants to build the wall, but so what? One's heritage alone does not create a conflict of interest reason to recuse a judge. Here is a real conflict of interest involving Florida AG and Trump's donation to her campaign.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-u-scandal-gets-worse-floridas-ag
Quote: 777Yes, Trump wants to build the wall, but so what? One's heritage alone does not create a conflict of interest reason to recuse a judge. Here is a real conflict of interest involving Florida AG and Trump's donation to her campaign.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-u-scandal-gets-worse-floridas-ag
It would be the first good thing to come out of Trump's campaign if his Biondi contribution takes her out of office for impropriety or bribery. She is disgustingly beholden to monied state interests and always has been. And her office is specifically designed to protect consumers and constituents from predators and scammers. It's been laughable since she took office.
I love the quote from the Sentinel reporter:Quote: 777Yes, Trump wants to build the wall, but so what? One's heritage alone does not create a conflict of interest reason to recuse a judge. Here is a real conflict of interest involving Florida AG and Trump's donation to her campaign.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-u-scandal-gets-worse-floridas-ag
Quote: Scott MaxwellIn fact, if you want to try to defend Bondi’s actions, try finishing this sentence for me: “I think it is perfectly appropriate for a prosecutor to take big chunks of money from someone she has been asked to investigate because ….”
If you can finish that sentence with a straight face, OK. I can’t.
He said that as he was talking, this very moment a woman was crossing the Rio Grande to go to El Paso where as sewing job was waiting for her. He added we should make it easier for her and also anyone who wanted to come into the USA. When questions about the effect on American jobs, he stated 1 and 1/2 million Mexican returned to Mexico during the last years , because thats were the jobs were. NUT JOB
Then he added Mexicans are only taking those jobs Americans won't do. RACIST
Does he think Mexicans can only pick peaches, like my granddaughter a single Mom of 23 is doing today in Palisades , Colorado. Temp is 92, a dry heat, but so is an oven. Does he think Americans are lazy and Mexicans incapable of having a trade ? Ask my friends in construction about that. Drywallers who were getting $20 to hang and mud a section of sheet rock, now being done by illegal immigrants for $8 a section. Or carpenters who were getting $45 a corner joint, now being done by illegals for $15.
How happy would you be to take a 60% pay cut?
But don't expect much to change for the working man. Democrats want the votes, Republicans want cheap labor.
Isn't that a big no-no for Republicans? They always criticize Obama for using teleprompters. Why is it okay for Trump to use one?
Quote:On Saturday, Donald Trump tried something different and endorsed his first congressional primary candidate: GOP Rep. Renee Ellmers (N.C.). Ellmers was facing off with conservative and tea party groups who endorsed her opponent, a fellow Republican incumbent, when Trump decided to intervene.
While Trump spent the last few days dealing with a party deeply critical of his "racist" -- Paul Ryan's words -- comments about a "Mexican" -- Trump's words -- judge, Ellmers bragged about Trump's endorsement and hoped it would spur some late enthusiasm for her campaign.
It didn't. On Tuesday evening, Ellmers became the first Republican congressional incumbent to lose a primary in 2016.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/07/donald-trumps-bad-week-just-got-worse-his-first-endorsed-candidate-got-destroyed/
Quote: ams288Trump is delivering a speech from a teleprompter. (Not very well, I might add. He's flubbed several lines. And he criticized Hillary's delivery last week. Sad!)
Isn't that a big no-no for Republicans? They always criticize Obama for using teleprompters. Why is it okay for Trump to use one?
I think you are overstating the teleprompter issue a little bit...yes, those dastardly Republicans have chided BO about using a teleprompter all the time. The criticism was more about him not knowing how to do anything without a teleprompter; not the mere fact he used it.
Trump is bad on a teleprompter. He would have to get comfortable with it if he were President, but we don't have to worry about that, right? Hillary? We will survive her Presidency, of course, but out of the two hundred candidates that started the race way back when she is my least favorite to listen to speaking. She is definitely not Bill when it comes to being an engaging speaker; far from it.
Quote: RonCI think you are overstating the teleprompter issue a little bit...yes, those dastardly Republicans have chided BO about using a teleprompter all the time. The criticism was more about him not knowing how to do anything without a teleprompter; not the mere fact he used it.
Trump is bad on a teleprompter. He would have to get comfortable with it if he were President, but we don't have to worry about that, right? Hillary? We will survive her Presidency, of course, but out of the two hundred candidates that started the race way back when she is my least favorite to listen to speaking. She is definitely not Bill when it comes to being an engaging speaker; far from it.
Trump should stick to his off the cuff speeches. At least he's funny and entertaining that way.
Last night's speech had Jeb! levels of low energy.
I think the polls showing a close race between Trump and Hillary made people realize that it's time to come together, unite behind Hillary, and get serious about defeating the orange man.
