Posted by Tina
Fox reports that donald Trump has released his 11 current picks for potential Supreme Court nominations:
Top picks include conservative federal and state judges like Steven Colloton of Iowa, Allison Eid of Colorado and Raymond Gruender of Missouri.
Also on the list are: Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, Joan Larsen of Michigan, Thomas Lee of Utah, William Pryor of Alabama, David Stras of Minnesota, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin and Don Willett of Texas. Trump had previously named Pryor and Sykes as examples of kind of justices he would choose.
The news comes as Trump is working to bring together a fractured Republican Party and earn the trust of still-skeptical establishment Republicans who question his electability in the general election, as well as conservatives in his party still wary of his commitment to their cause.
In a statement, Trump said the list “is representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value” and said that, as president, he would use it “as a guide to nominate our next United States Supreme Court Justices.”
The list has met with positive comments on talk radio today.
Geez, I hope somebody warned them. I mean, maybe some of them don’t want to be Trump picks. Not a kudo, really.
It wouldn’t be the first time, Libby.
The list was put together to give voters an idea of the kind of judges he would consider so it’s their record that’s of importance. I give him kudos for being transparent on the issue.
You’re aware of the concept of transparency of course, since both Hillary, Obama, and many others in his administration have such sterling records on that front.
“The list has met with positive comments on talk radio today.”
Gee. That’s comforting.
I’d be surprised if Trump knew who any of these people were last week. This guy is the most uninformed and misinformed potential nominee ever, he surrounds himself with idiots and yes-men, and conservatives have blasted him for picking a team of foreign policy experts made up of nobodies. Why would anyone trust him to make Supreme Court picks?
It doesn’t matter. He won’t be president.
Chris, I doubt very seriously if Obama or any other past president “knew” all of the people they considered for the SC either.
Trump has more worldly experience than either Barack Obama or Bill Clinton had when your party made them the flag bearers for your party. Your arrogant assessment is just piggish partisan crap as is your declaration. You’re sounding like a poor loser before the race has even begun. Hillary is not gaining momentum, Bernie is not going away, and Biden was in Ohio sounding “presidential” again. (Monica Crowley still thinks it will be a Biden/Warren ticket).
Who knows whether your party will even be ready to compete one on one.
Tina: “Trump has more worldly experience than either Barack Obama or Bill Clinton had when your party made them the flag bearers for your party.”
Irrelevant. Trump has no experience in politics or government–you know, that thing he wants to be the head of. Contrary to what some believe, the presidency is not the one job in the world where lack of qualifications is a qualification.
“You’re sounding like a poor loser before the race has even begun.”
The race began a long time ago, and Trump is way behind. Every single poll has found that Trump is viewed more unfavorably than any other candidate, by every demographic group.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html#polls
Clinton’s unfavorable ratings are historically high too, but nowhere near Trump’s:
“Clinton’s average “strongly unfavorable” rating in probability sample polls from late March to late April, 37 percent, is about 5 percentage points higher than the previous high between 19803 and 2012. Trump, though, is on another planet. Trump’s average “strongly unfavorable” rating, 53 percent, is 20 percentage points higher than every candidate’s rating besides Clinton’s. Trump is less disliked than David Duke was when Duke ran for the presidency in 1992, but Duke never came close to winning the nomination. In fact, I’ve seen never anything like Trump’s numbers heading into a general election for someone who is supposed to be competitive.”
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-distaste-for-both-trump-and-clinton-is-record-breaking/
“Your arrogant assessment is just piggish partisan crap as is your declaration.”
Ridiculous. You’re just using words without any regard to their meaning.
My assessment of Trump is that he is the most uninformed and misinformed nominee ever. How is this “partisan?” Tons of Republicans agree. My assessment is based on facts. Look at his Politifact file–his ratio of False to True statements is higher than any other candidate’s.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
All American politicians lie. No politician has lied as much as Trump.
Which explains why Piss Chris has announced his SCOTUS picks.
Glad Trump took a step in the right direction toward conservatism and away from liberalism by presenting his list of judges. But, they appear to be more of a representative guide and not one he’d pick from a short list.
My reservations comes from Trump always saying, after he’s made a commitment to do something, that it’s subject to change, or it was just a suggestion and subject to change. Is this a list of his candidates or not? Or is this an example of the type of judges he’d consider nominating?
As I wrote above its a list to let his voters know the type of judge he’d consider but if they’re on that list and have any interest I’m sure they’d make his short list.
As far as the things Trump says that seem in conflict I’d say there are two ways to look at it. Chris would declare Trump an ignorant liar who brags or some such. The other point of view is that Trump speaks knowing that there are three bodies that will have to work together to get anything done, he speaks knowing that ideas are not laws. it’s a refreshing change from the polished politician who promises, for instance, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” before the law is even passed. Trump isn’t a politician and he doesn’t speak like one. The people should consider that he has respect for the voters and makes his appeal based on the issues that are of importance to us. He is determined to put people back to work again, to make it possible for the economy to thrive, and to defeat the scourge of Islamic terrorism and bring stability back to the world. Anyone who promises what he will do over the course of years to accomplish those goals is a person who panders for votes and is more interested in his own magnificence than he is the people.
Sometimes the person least expected to do well surprise us and as we have discovered over the last seven plus, often those we hold out as superior often disappoint.
I think it’s always a crap shoot. We can only do our best to choose the person we think will best deliver for the people. As a conservative who loves people and wants to see everyone do well I’d choose Trump over any lefty candidate running now or waiting in the wings.
Tina: “Chris would declare Trump an ignorant liar who brags or some such.”
Millions of Republicans and Democrats have declared the same thing, because it’s obviously factually true. No serious person can dispute this.
“The other point of view is that Trump speaks knowing that there are three bodies that will have to work together to get anything done”
And that point of view is not based on reality. Trump has never given any indication that he knows this, and has in fact made it very clear that he wants to rule by fiat. For example, he believes he can force soldiers to follow illegal orders such as engaging in torture (his word) and killing the family members of terrorists. When asked what he would do if they refused such illegal orders, he simply said, “They won’t refuse me.”
This sounds like a man who respects the balance of power, and wouldn’t abuse his own? Fantasy.
“Trump isn’t a politician and he doesn’t speak like one.”
The opposite of “speaking like a politician” isn’t “speaking like a complete gutter-dwelling idiot.” You can want a politician that doesn’t speak like a typical politician without supporting a man who speaks like third grade bully. Snookie from Jersey Shore doesn’t speak like a politician either. Would you vote for her as president?
“The people should consider that he has respect for the voters”
Unless they’re Muslim, or a POW, or disabled, or any of the many, many other groups of Americans he has mocked. Or if they’re voting for another candidate and protesting at his events, in which case his “respect” for them is encouraging his voters to beat them up. Of course Donald Trump doesn’t have respect for the voters–hell, if he didn’t, he wouldn’t be running this cartoonish campaign. His entire candidacy is a disrespect toward the voters of America. Good god–what a ridiculous thing to say.
“He is determined to put people back to work again, to make it possible for the economy to thrive,”
He doesn’t know anything about the economy, Tina. He says the unemployment rate might be as high as 42%, which is mathematically impossible. He can’t decide if he wants taxes on the rich to go up or down. He said this, which should have you hopping mad:
“First of all, you never have to default because you print the money.”
This statement was condemned by the right and the left alike as reckless and ignorant. If Obama said it, you’d be furious.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/09/politics/donald-trump-2016-campaign-clean-up/
“and to defeat the scourge of Islamic terrorism and bring stability back to the world.”
Every single foreign policy expert has said his plan to ban all Muslim immigration would *harm* the effort to fight terrorism. Find me one that supports this plan. I’ve asked you this before, and you couldn’t do it.
Why do you believe Trump would be good for the economy and the fight against terrorism? Just because he says he would? Are you that easy to manipulate?
“Anyone who promises what he will do over the course of years to accomplish those goals is a person who panders for votes and is more interested in his own magnificence than he is the people.”
Exactly. So…why are we arguing?
We’re not arguing Chris, You’re being hysterical and I’m attempting to add some perspective. Get a frigging grip!
Bill Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate who remained un-vetted throughout his candidacy and was protected by the media during the campaign and his presidency. Barack Obama was a deeply flawed candidate who remained un-vetted and was promoted into the White House on the grand ideas of “hope and change.” He too has been protected by the media throughout his presidency.
You don’t know Jack $*** about who’s qualified or flawed and who isn’t or to what degree it has mattered. Even now you continue to defend BO.
As it stands now, THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN. Trump is the presumptive candidate.
As it stands now, Hillary Clinton is a deeply flawed candidate, with a miserable foreign policy record, a bunch of trash baggage, a documented record of lying and obfuscating, and a criminal investigation hanging over her head. The party you favor is pushing this candidate because they OWE Bill and Hillary, not because she’s a terrific candidate
Bernie Sanders is nothing but an agitator with a long history of radical politics that are anything but American. His economic policies would be a disaster for the poor and middle classes. Your party would dump him, and his supporters in a heart beat if they thought they could get away with it…they will deny him his “shot” one way or another and to hell with “the people.”
Before I will seriously engage you on the things you find so deeply offensive about Trump I need you to start acknowledging the incredibly horrendous flaws in your own candidates and party.
It wouldn’t hurt to also acknowledge the foreign policy failures of the current president and the horrendous damage he’s caused. I need you to admit that his economic policies, which have even more damage to unleash, are destroying the middle class and making the wealthy rich. I need you to take a serious look at what has worked under both Democrat and Republican presidents in the past and admit that the conservative approach is superior.
None of the candidates is wonderful. My candidate has suspended his bid. As it stands Trump is the most conservative of the bunch so he will have my vote. You do as you please.
Ah, so all you need me to do to admit Trump’s flaws is…change my entire economic philosophy and embrace conservatism! Totally fair!
Thank you for admitting you cannot have an honest or intelligent conversation with any liberal. I’ve said it for a while, and now you’ve confirmed it: you are the most tragically partisan person around.
You can’t tell the difference between candidates having a different economic viewpoint than you, within the realm of mainstream American political thought, and a viewpoint-free lunatic like Trump.
You can’t tell the difference between a flawed candidate and an unqualified one. Clinton is flawed, Obama was flawed, Bernie is flawed, Cruz is flawed–but they are all flawed in the normal ways politicians tend to be flawed. Trump is unelectable.
This isn’t just liberal me talking. This is a huge portion of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Heck, it’s Peggy. Don’t tell me my critiques of Trump are “partisan” when one of your best conservative friends is saying the same things about Trump I am.
Donald Trump dubs himself the “king of debt.” Experts say he doesn’t have a clue — at least when it comes to U.S. government debt.
Only a few weeks ago, Trump said he could eliminate federal debt in just eight years, a nearly impossible task. Trump’s own tax plan would add trillions to the debt.
Now he says the U.S. should just borrow more and renegotiate the terms later.
“I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal,” Trump said on CNBC last week.
The reaction on Wall Street and in Washington was that Trump can’t be serious. U.S. bonds are seen as one of the safest (if not THE safest) places to put your money in the world. Tinkering with that would almost certainly hurt America for years to come.
“Mr. Trump doesn’t have a coherent idea of what he’s talking about,” says Michael Strain, an economic policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. “This is the bond market equivalent of ‘we’re going to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it.'”
Related: Donald Trump: ‘I’m the king of debt’
Trump tries to clarify his debt plan
Paying creditors back anything less than the full amount calls into question the “full faith and credit” of the United States.
“People would read this as a default,” says Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “It’s saying we’re not repaying you what you’re owed.”
On Monday, Trump walked away from those comments. He told CNN’s Chris Cuomo he was misquoted.
“First of all, you never have to default because you print the money,” he said on CNN’s “New Day.”
Trump says what he really wants to do is have the government find a way to buy some bonds back at a cheaper price. It’s a fairly common practice for companies with “junk bonds” that are in financial duress.
But Strain, MacGuineas and many others say it would be a disastrous tactic for the United States government.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/09/news/economy/donald-trump-us-debt/index.html
He doesn’t have any idea what he’s talking about, Tina. He’s winging it. He’s making it up as he goes along, which is why he keeps contradicting himself, always claiming to have been “misquoted” and then saying something contrary but equally ridiculous.
Clinton, Obama, Bernie–these are people with a different economic philosophy than you. Maybe they’re wrong, but they are at least wrong within the framework of mainstream political thought. Trump is something else. He doesn’t HAVE an economic philosophy, because he hasn’t even studied the subject. He’s a kid who hasn’t studied for the test, and who is just guessing, while occasionally writing racist and sexist slurs in the corner of the paper.
And another thing…stop with the “experts” crap. There are experts with many varying opinions. “Experts” say a lot of things, including that Trump does have a good chance of repairing the damage and creating a good economy again. You won’t like what you read but it’s time you understood that your ideology isn’t THE ideology and there’s a hell of a lot of evidence to show that, with respect to economics and the fate of mankind, your ideology kinda sucks. Your experts have been proved wrong.
The expert linked to above (and his associate of the same name) Dr. Howard Richman (mailto:howard@idealtaxes.com) is one of three generations of a family of economists.
“Clinton, Obama, Bernie–these are people with a different economic philosophy than you. Maybe they’re wrong, but they are at least wrong within the framework of mainstream political thought.”
That’s little comfort to the hundreds of thousands of people that have been badly affected by the “philosophy” you defend. While you and your experts have smugly defended Obama a lot of your fellow Americans have lost jobs, houses, savings and potential savings, and seen the cost of living rise. A different “philosophy” is called for now, doncha think? A reasonable period to effect change is also called for if Trump wins before your experts pull out the long knives.
“He doesn’t HAVE an economic philosophy, because he hasn’t even studied the subject.”
And you know this how?
Do you think getting a degree in economics is the ONLY way to learn about economics? Do you imagine that the so-called economists that lack a drop of practical real world experience are by definition smarter and better suited to make decisions in the real world than someone who has and has had to live with economic policies under different administrations and their “philosophies?”
Has it occurred to you that your “experts” have trashed Reaganomics with impunity since the eighties despite his record of success and despite the fact that those policies have worked under both Democrats and Republicans? (Doees it occur to you that the criticism is POLITICAL?)
There is no candidate alive or dead who is “expert” at anything. All presidents rely on the opinions of advisors and their own knowledge. Trump has an education and a lot of practical experience.
And finally, setting the standard high for Republican candidates and low for your precious Democrat candidates is making me nauseous! It’s obvious, ridiculous, and pointless.
LOL
Trump is making backroom deals, that’s all. he has no clue. Come on now he is a Buffoon. He wants to sell off taxpayer assets to pay for their profit wars. Start more wars and make the taxpayers pay.
He knows how to make money off Bankruptcy laws. He is a con man. All about money.
Also he is not going to pay for this campaign. He just took the nom and will be the King Vulture.
Trump is a dangerous real life Fascist and is collecting Voters much like Hitler did. You realize Hitler was elected right?
The Problem in America is Republicans live for a Brand thinking they are somehow ore Patriotic and American.
Democrats do the same.
It’s all a Game controlled by the Donors and Big Money Interests.
Trump is embarrassing. Find a Candidate and run them.
Dewey your message, as always, comes across loud and clear.
Tina, real quick: Does Donald Trump want to raise taxes on the rich, or lower them? Do you even know? Does he?
Just a couple weeks ago Trump said, “For the wealthy, I think, frankly, it’s going to go up. And you know what? It really should go up.”
This was after he has claimed many times throughout the past year that he would lower taxes on everyone, including the wealthy. Yet just last year, he was saying he wanted taxes on the rich raised. Then when asked for clarification, he gave a totally nonsensical explanation.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/12/upshot/donald-trumps-plan-to-raise-taxes-on-rich-just-kidding.html?referer=
THAT’S how I know Trump doesn’t have an economic philosophy, Tina. Because I pay basic attention to the things he says.
If you actually care about conservative economics, you will too. Trump is not a conservative. He’s a Trumpist. He doesn’t give a —- about you, or this country. He cares about his own ego and power.
Chris I will risk a Trumpist to lead this nation before throwing the nation under a bus under a 90% Bernie communist, a criminal Hillary socialist with an abusive criminal husband….or, if it comes to that, a dopey socialist Joe Biden with a socialist fake Indian Elizabeth Warren as VP. these are the people that have already nearly destroyed the nation under Barack Obama. Any of them will take this nation into HELL!
I disagree. Trump does care about this country. He cares about the regular people too. He is not narcissist; he does have a healthy ego…there’s a difference. The Clintons and Obama are all narcissists. Hillary has been called a pathological liar; it fits. Bernie is the most honest of the bunch but he is a revolutionary at heart, a natural divider.
So far you are a Trump basher. You haven’t tried to convince me or our readers that your party offers better choices. That’s because you don’t have better choices!
Bernie Sanders is not a communist. He is a socialist.
You don’t understand what words mean.
“[Trump] does have a healthy ego”
You’ve gone off the deep end. Luckily, most of your fellow Republicans aren’t following you. Most, like Peggy, realize Trump is not a conservative, nor does he believe in anything but himself. Peggy is smart. Be more like Peggy.
I noticed you completely dodged my question about Trump’s tax plan, like you dodge all relevant questions. I’ll try again, in simpler terms: you have said before that raising taxes on the rich is a socialist idea. Does that make Donald Trump a socialist? Or, since he goes back and forth on whether or not taxes on the rich should go up (often within the same week), is he only sometimes a socialist?
How do you know he won’t raise taxes once in office, thus “leading us into Hell” to use your hysterical hyperbolic terms?
“Bernie Sanders is not a communist. He is a socialist.”
That’s what he says. Not all agree.
Mathew Vadum of Frontpage Magazine:
“Luckily, most of your fellow Republicans aren’t following you. Most, like Peggy, realize Trump is not a conservative…
I’ve never said he was a conservative. I’ve said he is more conservative than anyone your party offers.
Regarding taxes and Trumps tax plan. Trump will lower tax rates that will get the economy going: corporate rates and rates for the middle class. there was a kerfuffle in the media when he said he would raise rates on the wealthy. What he explained later is that he meant he might have to raise the rate he had proposed but that the wealthy would still have a lower rate than they do now.
I know you can’t help yourself Chris. Being a snippy little game playing jerk seems to be a natural manner for you. As we both know anything any candidate proposes is just that, a proposal. It still has to get through Congress before it gets to the presidents desk. So stop with the games.
“How do you know he won’t raise taxes once in office, thus “leading us into Hell” to use your hysterical hyperbolic terms?”
How many times have I said it’s always a crap shoot in the last few weeks?
And since the future belongs to you Chris I’d suggest you start taking very seriously the economic and financial situation we face. Opinions abound.
Economy in Crisis
The Guardian
The Crux
Nasdaq.com
IB Times
It isn’t hyperbole when you have some notion of the economic challenges we already face, how we got here, what economists say is coming, and what a Bernie or Hillary president would mean given all of it.
“In an address heavy on class warfare, envy, and hatred, he declared that financial inequality “is immoral, it is bad economics, it is unsustainable.” This is tantamount to saying that the only just society is one in which everyone has the same amount of money or that anyone who has the ability to make a lot of money is an enemy of the people.”
Man, this is bad. No, saying current levels of inequality are immoral is NOT the same as saying “the only just society is one in which everyone has the same amount of money.” This is the argument of someone who can only think in false dichotomies. MLK Jr. said similar things in his speeches; was he a communist? The author says there is “no bright line” between socialism and communism. Really? There’s no bright line between Soviet Russia and Sweden? No bright line between democratic socialist George Orwell and the Communist regimes he spent his entire literary career railing against? Absurd.
More later.
In fact, the author of the piece you cited (intentionally?) clipped Sanders’ speech in order to create that false dichotomy. What Sanders actually said was, “This grotesque level of inequality is immoral. It is bad economics. It is unsustainable.” Obviously, that is not a call for total economic equality–which no one believes is possible–it’s a call for reducing current levels of inequality. That’s not communism, that’s mainstream economic thought.
Your author either doesn’t know what he’s taking about, or he’s lying.
Tina: “there was a kerfuffle in the media when he said he would raise rates on the wealthy. What he explained later is that he meant he might have to raise the rate he had proposed but that the wealthy would still have a lower rate than they do now.”
And you believed him?!
How did you not notice this explanation made no sense?
Again, this was his statement:
“Just a couple weeks ago Trump said, “For the wealthy, I think, frankly, it’s going to go up. And you know what? It really should go up.”
How could this mean that he thinks he might “have to” raise the rate he proposed? It can’t. He didn’t say he would have to raise it, he said it “should” be raised.
Trump often doesn’t *know* what he means, Tina. He’s like a kid who says whatever pops in his head because he thinks it sounds good at the time. He’s a swindler, and while this may have worked for him as often as not in the business world, it shouldn’t work on anyone paying attention to politics. The presidency is too important.
“I’ve never said he was a conservative. I said he is more conservative than anyone your party offers.”
I suppose if that’s your only criteria for the presidency then Trump might seem the better alternative. Personally, I’d rather have someone with beliefs and ideals, even if I disagree with them, then someone like Trump who only believes in himself. Trump could have just as easily run as a Democrat if not for his sexism, racism, and religious bigotry. I would rather Ted Cruz become president than Donald. Despite my massive disagreements with Cruz, he at least stands for something. And so do Clinton and Bernie. No matter how much you hate what they stand for, they at least have serious economic and political viewpoints shaped by decades of experience, and their views are within the mainstream of political thought, just as Cruz’s are. Trump, in addition to having no core beliefs, is completely unqualified. You’re talking about a decision between more of the same, and total chaos.
If I were you I’d be more concerned with the damage Trump is doing to the Republican Party. Trump’s brand of conservatism is little more than nationalism. Taxes, healthcare, the economy–these are all side issues to a man who has built his platform on keeping out immigrants if certain nationalities and religions. He has done this all while mocking the disabled, POWs, and women, telling his supporters to assault protesters, having journalists manhandled, praising dictators like Putin and Kim Jong Un, and saying he would change the laws to more easily sue journalists who say bad things about him. If he is allowed to become the face of your party, that’s what conservatism will come to mean–not small government, but hatred, xenophobia, and misogyny.
If that’s what you want, vote Trump. It’ll be a wasted vote anyway, since he will never, ever win a general election. But how much he loses by will tell us a lot about the values and future of the Republican Party.
And if Hillary the criminal and her disgusting husband win it will confirm the fact that Democrats not only lack values but are corrupt t the bone. But then we already know that.
Your better than thou act is really ridiculous, Chris. I guess it can only be chalked up to your age and lack of experience.
Trumps “platform” will be decided at the convention.
Campaigns are mostly BS as is evidenced by the CNN Panel that was “amused” by Hillary’s changing positions. Trump has sucked up so much oxygen in this campaign you probably haven’t even noticed how old Bernie has forced her to the far left:
Hillary changed her position on Iraq, gay marriage, immigration and gun control. She changed her position on lifting the embargo on Cuba. She flipped on the TPP, was wishy-washy on the pipeline, medical marijuana, and sending troops to fight ISIS.
Obama promised a lot of things, affordable health care, ending the war, closing Gitmo, bills we could view on the internet before they were passed into law, shrinking the deficit…wow what a whopper!
Given the political landscape, your idiot lectures about Trump’s ethics are childish and pathetic. Be disgusted but so me a favor and spare me the moralizing.
Clinton’s flaws are within the “normal” range for American politics. She flip-flops and acts robotic? So did Romney. He didn’t win, but he wasn’t unelectable. The private server thing is troubling, but again, in the normal range. The only thing that could push her outside this range for me is if it was revealed that Bill did sexually assault those women and Hillary knew about it.
Trump is a circus act–he doesn’t just flip-flop, he has no idea what he’s saying at any given moment.
There’s a double standard at work here too: no female candidate could ever get away with acting like Trump. Can you imagine if Hillary bragged about her boob size on a debate stage? Her career would be over. But Trump talking about his penis had no effect on his supporters’ views of him; they probably cheered for him.
The “moralizing” isn’t just coming from me, it’s coming from George Will, Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, everyone at the National Review, even Breitbart defectors. The Republican Party will split in two if he is the nominee. It’s looking like you will be on the wrong side.
Also: Obama *did* cut the deficit, so I’m not sure why you named that as a broken promise.
“Clinton’s flaws are within the “normal” range for American politics.”
If that’s true, and I greatly disagree, then Trump is at this point high above “normal” to the positive. At this point he has no political record. He’s a shiny penny by comparison.
“Can you imagine if Hillary bragged about her boob size on a debate stage? ”
Maybe in the eighties but after Bill Clinton much has changed. Clinton was not ruined politically for any of the things he was accused of actually doing…not even sex in the oval office with an intern. If that isn’t disgusting behavior unworthy of the office I don;t know what is…and yet he remains a beloved spokesman for the party. This isn’t Hillary’s fault of course except for the fact that she also treated these women like dirt, referring to them as bimbos and trash. Now on the campaign trail she says women like these deserve to be believed. Talk about a hypocrite!
“The “moralizing” isn’t just coming from me…”
They are professional journalist and they are being consistent. They were also critical of Bill and Hillary. Maybe you can explain why journalists from your camp refrain from criticizing and dismissing as “unworthy” this despicable couple and their cadre of complicit hangers-on.
“The Republican Party will split in two if he is the nominee.”
You wish!
“It’s looking like you will be on the wrong side.”
Can’t wait to say I told you so?
Obama claims to have cut the deficit by playing games with the numbers. Only a really naive and ignorant person would buy the lie. The cuts in spending were cuts in the amount of increase for the coming years and the debt throughout his presidency exploded! Besides, he and his party fought tooth and nail to stop those cuts from happening (even though it had been an Obama idea). CNS News:
US National Debt Clock
CBO, “Updated Budget Projections: 2016 to 2026”:
Maybe it’s Obama who doesn’t understand what he’s saying but simply mouths a soundbite fed to him. I’d say that’s a pretty safe bet.
Romney didn’t win because he was Alinskied and didn’t fight back and because Obama is a black man. Hillary Clinton is attempting to use the woman card in the same way but not everyone is buying this time around. With all of that ill-gotten money and then announcing she’ll have her husband run the economy cause “he’s so good at it?” Dumb! Really dumb. The economy is the number one issue and the “woman” running for Prez doesn’t even want to be in charge? Pathetic.
Tina: “If that’s true, and I greatly disagree, then Trump is at this point high above “normal” to the positive. At this point he has no political record. He’s a shiny penny by comparison.”
Other people with no political record: Kim Kardashian; Charles Manson; Alf.
Why on earth do Trump supporters think having “no political record” is a plus when it comes to the presidency? That is inhumanly dumb.
Me: “Can you imagine if Hillary bragged about her boob size on a debate stage? ”
“Maybe in the eighties but after Bill Clinton much has changed.”
What? I literally don’t know what this response is supposed to mean.
“Clinton was not ruined politically for any of the things he was accused of actually doing…not even sex in the oval office with an intern. If that isn’t disgusting behavior unworthy of the office I don;t know what is…and yet he remains a beloved spokesman for the party.”
It is disgusting behavior unworthy of the office.
It is also private behavior, which we judge by different standards when it comes to public officials. That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t wrong, or that once the secret was out, it wasn’t damaging to our country. It was. But I’m imagining a President Trump doing the same thing, then doing a press conference bragging about the intern he banged before high-fiving Vice President Christie.
Trump’s public conduct is outrageous, and worse than either Clinton.
“This isn’t Hillary’s fault of course except for the fact that she also treated these women like dirt, referring to them as bimbos and trash. Now on the campaign trail she says women like these deserve to be believed. Talk about a hypocrite!”
No, she believes women who have been sexually assaulted deserve to be believed. She doesn’t believe the women who have accused her husband were really sexually assaulted. It isn’t hypocrisy, it’s just using language in a way that seems meaningful to a specific target audience, but doesn’t actually mean anything.
“Obama claims to have cut the deficit by playing games with the numbers.”
No, it is a fact that he has cut the deficit. How do you not know this? Too far inside the bubble?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/20/barack-obama/barack-obama-claims-deficit-has-decreased-two-thir/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/26/cbo-report-budget/22353147/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/us/politics/stronger-economy-cited-as-us-reports-lowest-budget-deficit-of-obamas-tenure.html?_r=0
Your CNS article is from 2013 and uses numbers from 2012; your CBO article does not compare the deficit when Obama entered to the current deficit.
“Romney didn’t win because he was Alinskied and didn’t fight back”
He Alinskied himself with his divisive, classist comments about the 47% who are irresponsible and don’t take care of their lives.
“and because Obama is a black man.”
Because everyone knows there is only positive bias toward black men in this country, and zero negative bias. Come on.
“With all of that ill-gotten money and then announcing she’ll have her husband run the economy cause “he’s so good at it?” Dumb! Really dumb. The economy is the number one issue and the “woman” running for Prez doesn’t even want to be in charge? Pathetic.”
That’s an overly literal reading of her statement, but I agree it was a dumb thing to say.
Not “Unemployment could be 42%” dumb, but still dumb.
“Other people with no political record: Kim Kardashian; Charles Manson; Alf. ”
Very funny and totally useless in a serious conversation. But hey, I’ll get into the spirit, “ALF for President!” We’ve done worse.
“Why on earth do Trump supporters think having “no political record” is a plus when it comes to the presidency? That is inhumanly dumb. ”
What political experience did George Washington have? And what exactly is so magical about being in politics? The founders expected the people to come forward to serve for a time and then return home to attend to their professions and businesses. I found this appropriate to the sentiment: Jefferson’s epitaph read: “Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, of the statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and the father of the University of Virginia.” It didn’t include “President of the United States”!
” I literally don’t know what this response is supposed to mean.”
The days of decency and decorum ended when the Clintons were in the WH. Bill’s blue dress event had teenagers thinking the BJ’s weren’t really sex and were a “safe” alternative. The expectations you seem to suddenly have have already been pummeled to death by Bill and Hillary. Unfortunately for you, your fellow Democrats think they can do no wrong, nor anyone else in the party really. Now the chickens have come home to roost. The jigs up. Trump is calling them on it and you have no moral ground on which to complain. Yours is the party of sleaze.
“…It is also private behavior”
It WAS private behavior. But as every sleazy encounter is wont to do, it became public knowledge and the behavior that followed was just as sleazy and shameful. It was particularly shameful because, as with Obama, Bill Clinton was never properly vetted. He was ushered into the WH…remember the media was four channels and a couple of prominent liberal papers…all in for Bill and Hill, the next Camelot. His record in Arkansas should have disqualified him from running much less winning.
” I’m imagining a President Trump doing the same thing, then doing a press conference bragging about the intern he banged before high-fiving Vice President Christie.”
Big imagination. No wonder you defend Bill Clinton; you think like him. There’s nothing to indicate what you imagine would happen. There’s always a chance. He’s still better for the economy and the border and the war and the largess of big government than either Hillary or Bernie. As of now that’s the field.
“Trump’s public conduct is outrageous, and worse than either Clinton. ”
“I did not have sex with THAT WOMAN, Ms Lewinski….” He flat out lied to the American people, treated Ms Lewinski like crap, then had the audacity to make that “depends on the definition of is” statement. You were a child…you have NO IDEA!
“she believes women who have been sexually assaulted deserve to be believed. She doesn’t believe the women who have accused her husband were really sexually assaulted. It isn’t hypocrisy, it’s just using language in a way that seems meaningful to a specific target audience, ”
Utter nonsense! Horsefeathers! Gobbledygook!
“…it is a fact that he has cut the deficit. How do you not know this?”
First headline: Obama “claims”…a claim isn’t a fact.
Second USA Today article: “the annual deficit topped $1 trillion for each of Obama’s first four years in office, including a record $1.4 trillion in 2009. Deficits have since fallen due to a combination of federal spending cuts and economic growth. The government had a shortfall of $483 billion in 2014.”
this makes sense BUT, saying you cut the deficit is a little disingenuous when you are still adding to the debt, $483 billion. Also Obama went kicking and screaming just like Bill Clinton. These deficits are due to spending cuts: Obama curtailed.
Third headline: Obama deficit “lowest of his tenure”…that doesn’t mean we should celebrate. It means in that period his overspending was less than his overspending in other years. We are still overspending…exceeding the budgeted amounts.
And remember a new budget is proposed every year. Every year the budget increases. “Cuts” are cuts in the amount of increase…spending still goes up (Increases).
“He Alinskied himself with his divisive, classist comments ”
The media ignores the classist, racist, bigoted things your leaders say. Romney did not deserve the treatment he got, he got it because he was a republican.
“Because everyone knows there is only positive bias toward black men”
No pinhead. It was an historical election. Obama was selected and promoted. He was not vetted. He ran on empty slogans. His honeymoon period lasted three years or more. There are people who STILL do not treat him as a man but as a “black” man who cannot be criticized.
“Not “Unemployment could be 42%” dumb, but still dumb. ”
You just won’t let it go. Fine.
How many able bodied Americans are on welfare? How many able bodied Americans can;t find work they want? How many able bodies Americans are working two jobs when they’d rather have one good one? How many able bodied citizens are chronically unemployed…work now and then to get by? How many people are actually disabled and unable to work. Answer all of that and you could easily come up with 42% unemployment.
Americans are not thriving! The Obama administration has overseen a lousy economy and you make excuses! You wouldn’t make excuses if thi was a republican president. What is it with you?
Forbes:
His happy talk on the economy is a face saving attempt to fool the people. Don’t be ignorant, Chris, the writing is on the wall for all to see.
Tina: “What political experience did George Washington have?”
Is this a joke?
Here, maybe this will help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington#Constitutional_Convention
Please never criticize my understanding of history again. Your question is embarrassing.
Donald Trump would be the first president in American history with no experience in either the military or politics.
““Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, of the statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and the father of the University of Virginia.” It didn’t include “President of the United States”!”
And yet it did include “author of the Declaration of Independence, of the statute of Virginia.” Both of which are political achievements. Think.
“The days of decency and decorum ended when the Clintons were in the WH. Bill’s blue dress event had teenagers thinking the BJ’s weren’t really sex and were a “safe” alternative.”
1) Teenagers thought that for a long time before Clinton.
2) A President Trump will have children thinking that being a bully is not only acceptable, but admirable. He has consistently name-called his political opponents, criticized their physical appearance in demeaning ways, said that POWs aren’t heroes, mocked a reporter’s physical disability, told his supporters to beat up protesters, and even tweeted the home phone number of Senator Lindsey Graham. And this is just his public conduct! If he acts like this in front of crowds, how do you think he treats people in private?
He is a bully, and putting a bully in the White House condones bullying for our entire society. That would be worse than any negative influence Bill had, and worse than any negative influence Clinton would have.
Me: “I’m imagining a President Trump doing the same thing, then doing a press conference bragging about the intern he banged before high-fiving Vice President Christie.”
Tina: “Big imagination…There’s nothing to indicate what you imagine would happen.”
Sure there is. If I had “imagined” a year ago that Trump would brag about the size of his penis during a presidential debate, would you have believed this was likely to happen? Heck, it would seem far-fetched to me. And yet it happened. He did that. So him bragging about banging an intern in a press conference isn’t hard to believe at all.
“He’s still better for the economy and the border and the war and the largess of big government than either Hillary or Bernie. As of now that’s the field.”
No. Neither Hilary nor Bernie think the unemployment rate could be higher than the total percentage of Americans not in the workforce, and neither of them have advocated forcing soldiers to commit war crimes; that makes them better on the economy and the war by default.
““I did not have sex with THAT WOMAN, Ms Lewinski….” He flat out lied to the American people, treated Ms Lewinski like crap, then had the audacity to make that “depends on the definition of is” statement. You were a child…you have NO IDEA!”
Tina, I’m aware of all of this. Again, this behavior is within the “normal” range of political scandals. That’s sad, but true.
“Utter nonsense! Horsefeathers! Gobbledygook!”
Yes, that’s what I was getting at. Clinton’s statement on sexual assault victims was, ultimately, political mumbo-jumbo. “They deserve to be believed,” unless they’re lying. It was a meaningless statement.
See, I’m capable of criticizing people on my side. Why aren’t you?
“First headline: Obama “claims”…a claim isn’t a fact.”
I’m sorry, I was unaware you had a condition that rendered you unable to read anything but headlines.
“this makes sense BUT, saying you cut the deficit is a little disingenuous when you are still adding to the debt, $483 billion.”
No, it isn’t. The deficit and the debt are two different things.
What was disingenuous was your claim that Obama broke his promise to lower the deficit, then turning around and saying “Well, it doesn’t matter that what I said wasn’t true, because he’s still raising the debt.” Just say you were wrong. It’s not that hard!
“Third headline: Obama deficit “lowest of his tenure”…that doesn’t mean we should celebrate.”
No, it just means you were wrong.
“How many able bodied Americans are on welfare? How many able bodied Americans can;t find work they want? How many able bodies Americans are working two jobs when they’d rather have one good one? How many able bodied citizens are chronically unemployed…work now and then to get by? How many people are actually disabled and unable to work. Answer all of that and you could easily come up with 42% unemployment.”
No, you couldn’t, because half the crap you just wrote has nothing to do with unemployment, and even if it did, it would still be impossible to get 42%, since that’s higher than the total number of non-working adult Americans, as I have shown you numerous times in the past. Stop defending this. Your continued attempts to do so are embarrassingly weak.