Posted by Jack
WASHINGTON (SBG) — More than a week ago, Donald Trump clinched the number of delegates needed to win the Republican nomination for president. Tuesday, primaries in six states are likely to further cement that spot. But all is not quiet in the Republican camp. Trump, the outsider, still rankles some party insiders.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: Well, I think there’s a really big, deep argument about the future of the party, but it’s not much of a crisis. It’s 80 or 90 percent of the party nationally versus 5 or 10 percent of the party in Washington. So in the end, Washington will lose and the country will win.
Sharyl Attkisson: Is Trump, do you see, as part of the solution or part of the problem?
Gingrich: I don’t know yet if he’s a solution, because we don’t know how he’s going to work out, but he certainly is a sign that the unhappiness in the country is so deep that Trump made more sense than 16 other choices. The country wants somebody who’s going to kick over the table.
Trump attacks on judge among his ‘worst mistakes,’ ‘inexcusable’*
Attkisson: Do you agree that that’s what they should get?
Gingrich: Absolutely. I think the system [is] sick and I think it needs to be very dramatically overhauled.
*Gingrich is declining on “Fox News Sunday” to accuse the presumptive Republican presidential nominee of racism. But Gingrich says Trump has to recognize that he’s now the “potential leader” of the U.S. and should move his game to a new level. Trump has proposed building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. And he argues that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel has a conflict of interest in the legal case because of the judge’s heritage and because of Trump’s border plan.
Given that a major critique of Obama has been his alleged hostility to the other branches of government, how do Trump’s attacks on Judge Curiel indicate a President Trump would behave toward Supreme Court judges who make rulings he doesn’t like?
Lindsey Graham has a warning for Trump supporters, calling Trump’s prejudiced attacks on Judge Curial “the most un-American thing from a politician since Joe McCarthy.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/06/07/politics/lindsey-graham-donald-trump/index.html?client=safari#
Remember that Trump doxxed Graham last year, revealing his home phone number. Would Trump continue using such tactics to target congressmen who go against him as president? Would you support the continued use of such tactics?
“Alledged hostility to the other branches of government?”
Obama’s on tape showing contempt for other branches of government!
If ” hostility to the other branches of government” disqualifies a person for the presidency then you must think Obama should have been impeached for openly insulting the Supreme Court justices in the (world-wide) televised State of the Union speech and for inviting Paul Ryan to meeting under the guise of a “meeting of the minds” where he then insulted Ryan before the cameras.
The Vice President should also be disqualified for ineliquent, deliberate remarks before a black audience that Romney (republican policies) would “put y’all back in chains.”
Powerline points out that Hillary, through surrogates of course, accused the IG of bias:
Daily Wire:
Lindsey Graham is a compromised Republican with a grudge so it’s not surprising at all that he would pile on. But really Chris, your going to bring this up after Hillary exposed CIA operatives and sensitive material by using her unsecured private server?
It should be noted too that Obama was elected despite the fact that he was openly critical of the Constitution, a document that he would one day be required to defend.
Your concerns, though important, are phony, hypocritical, and partisan.
Tina: “Obama’s on tape showing contempt for other branches of government!”
OK.
So why would you vote for someone who is just as hostile toward the other branches of government as Obama?
Because…
THE OTHER TWO OPTIONS ARE JUST THAT BAD!
Re : “alleged hostility”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Obama’s water boy is working overtime. Talk about deliberately turning a blind eye! Hear no evil, see no evil, speak evil.
More opposition from conservative writer Jennifer Rubin:
The most disturbing part of the Donald Trump phenomenon is the abysmal reaction of others on the right and across our political-media landscape. It is not merely left-wing protesters who turn violent or Trumpkin racists and anti-Semites on social media who should alarm us. Rather, it should concern us when so many wake up to say, “Let’s do the wrong, cowardly thing.”
Imagine if:
Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus never went on bended knee to Trump with his worthless pledge but instead routinely denounced his utterances.
Republican candidates with no real chance to win chose not to run or quickly dropped out and denounced Trump, leaving only three or four candidates in the field.
Mike Murphy at the Jeb Bush super PAC spent more money exposing Trump than attacking other Republicans.
During the debate the Trump opponents had uniformly denounced his bigoted rhetoric, ridiculed his lame ideas and leaped on his lies.
The other Republicans refused to say they’d support him as the nominee.
Cable TV did not give Trump billions of dollars in free airtime and critically interviewed him and investigated his scandals from the get-go.
Fox News behaved like a real news operation.
Radio talk show hosts posing as conservatives had revealed Trump as a charlatan, a hater and a fraud.
Washington Post: ‘Trump is pathologically dishonest and morally bankrupt’
Washington Post: ‘Trump is pathologically dishonest and morally bankrupt’
The Star-Ledger has made this observation before. This week WaPo makes it clear it does not trust the GOP presumptive nominee.
The RNC quickly reduced the debates to four or five competitors so as to provide them and the moderators with more time to grill Trump.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) had not fawned over Trump for months.
Social conservative leaders in unison had denounced Trump as racist, ignorant, cruel, dishonest, greedy and ungenerous instead of being content after he checked the antiabortion box and toted around a Bible.
The RNC made clear that the rules at the convention would require the release of five years of tax reforms.
Republican leaders refused to endorse Trump after he secured the requisite number of delegates, donors refused to fund him and elected GOP officials declined to speak for him at the convention.
An attractive team (Sasse-Haley, Ryan-Martinez) had chosen to contest Trump and run as an independent ticket.
If even a few of these things had occurred, we might not now have an openly racist GOP nominee and a dismal election choice.
And even if we had exactly the same result — a Trump vs. Hillary Clinton election — all of the players identified above would have had the satisfaction that goes with doing the honorable thing. They could have looked their children in the eye and said, “When bad people come along, your obligation is to do your part to stop them.” And they would be in a position after Trump passes from the political scene to pick up the pieces and chart a new course for the conservative movement and the GOP.
Instead of principled leadership, we have had mass followership, a display of widespread moral idiocy. Make a buck. Preserve your “political viability.” “Unify” the party.
It is ironic that one of the icons of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, had this phenomenon pegged almost 300 years ago when he said: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Dear GOP: I’m breaking up with you over Trump | Opinion
Dear GOP: I’m breaking up with you over Trump | Opinion
Conservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin finally calls it quits on the Republican Party, says Trump is just to much for her to stick around.
In this case it was worse; good men behaved badly, facilitating evil.
From our vantage point, a post-Trump conservative party will need to repudiate the institutional conduct of the RNC, Trump and his backers. In simplest terms it will need to restore virtue and character as the fundamental prerequisites of public leadership.
It will be more difficult because having nominated Trump, the GOP and the country will have reset our tolerance for moral and intellectual sloth.
Ramesh Ponnuru writes:
“If we elevate a man we know to be cruel, impulsive, insecure, vain and dishonest to the most powerful position in our country, that choice helps to define our own character and shape our expectations for one another.”
Several years ago Peter Wehner wrote:
“The task of modern American conservatism is to sketch out a vision of the kind of citizens we hope to produce: citizens who are self-sufficient, sovereign, discerning, and responsible. We need to promote policies that encourage success, enterprise, and human excellence. This is another way of saying that what conservatives should be championing is self-government. If done in the right way — in a manner that is uplifting rather than preachy, affirming rather than scolding — it can help rally an anxious country to an admirable cause.”
Are there are such leaders out there who will promote and not undermine those qualities, who, while flawed like all of us, will aspire to be better? Perhaps we will need to look beyond the political realm to the military, philanthropy, education and the sciences to find leaders with a reliable moral compass. We cannot be great if our leaders intentionally reject the real values that are critical to a functioning democracy — decency, tolerance, kindness, restraint, empathy and rationality.
http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/06/because_gop_leaders_were_cowards_trump_now_represe.html#incart_most-commented_politics_article
This isn’t about right and left. It’s about right and wrong.
Semi-republican, hardly conservative
Paul Ryan agrees that Trump’s attack on Judge Curiel was “the textbook definition of a racist comment.”
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/07/politics/paul-ryan-donald-trump-racist-comment/index.html
Megyn Kelly–who knows the law better than most of us–has criticized pundits defending Trump’s attacks on Judge Curiel, pointing out the consequences to our legal system if Trump got his way:
Now even some pundits are demanding that Judge Curiel step down to eliminate doubts as to his motivations, but that is not the way our system works. Judges must indeed avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest, but litigants do not get to create that appearance by vocally complaining about the judge. Any litigant who moved to disqualify a judge based on his heritage would be actually sanctioned — punished — by any court and it’s happened in the past, rightfully. Moreover if a litigant making a stink about a judge necessarily resulted in a conflict that would force a judge to step down, it would lead to chaos in our court system. It would prejudice the other party who’s not complaining or taking their licks. And it would lead to more parties throwing fits in order to bounce judges off the case whose rulings they do not like. Simply put this is not the way our system was designed to work.
And today with all this controversy coming to a head, Bloomberg dropped a bombshell report quoting sources who are on a phone call with Mr. Trump saying the candidate called on supporters to join him in questioning the judge’s credibility and went on to ask them to also attack the reporters who asked about it.
Kelly gets it wrong. If this were simply about Trump criticizing Curiel’s Mexican heritage, she would have a point.
But this is not just about Gonzalo Curiel’s Mexican heritage, it is about his and the prosecuting lawyers’ firm membership in the racist organization the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association which has long standing ties to the racist organizations National Council of La Raza and MEChA.
1) Trump did not mention La Raza at any point in his original diatribe against Judge Curiel. His entire argument was that Curiel was biased because he was Mexican. Here’s the full quote:
Everybody says it, but I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump. He’s a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curial… We are in front of a very hostile judge. The judge was appointed by by Barack Obama – federal judge. [Boos]. Frankly he should recuse himself. He has given us ruling after ruling, negative, negative, negative. I have a top lawyer who said he has never seen anything like this before. So what happens is we get sued. We have a Magistrate named William Gallo who truly hates us..Watch how we win it as I have been treated unfairly. . . . So what happens is the judge, who happens to be, we believe Mexican, which is great. I think that is fine. You know what? I think the Mexicans are going to end up loving Donald Trump when I give all these jobs. I think they are going to love it. I think they are going to love me. . .I think Judge Curiel should be ashamed of himself. I think it is a disgrace he is doing this… It is a disgrace. It is a rigged system…They ought to look into Judge Curiel because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/06/07/ethics-observations-on-the-donald-trump-mexican-judge-affair/
Trump only began mentioning Curiel’s connections with La Raza later, to justify his initial ridiculous stance.
2) None of the organizations you named are racist.
3) It would not even matter if Curiel’s group was racist. What would matter would be if the judge had any record of letting his bias interfere with his judgment. Unless Trump can prove that, he has no grounds to accuse Curiel of bias.
4) Trump’s lawyers know this, which is why they have not accused Curiel of bias. This is a political ploy–an excuse so that if Trump loses the case, his supporters will believe it wasn’t because he actually scammed people, but because the judge was bias. Given that these people are all currently being scammed by Trump, I expect this to be very persuasive among his target audience.
I should point out I disagree with Jack Marshall’s conclusion at that link that Trump’s statements weren’t technically racism–I think he is being pedantic on that point. But he does a good job of explaining that Trump has no real argument in favor of the judge’s recusal.
You don’t suppose this is finally the final straw? … like when McCarthy attacked the Army?
Oh, to have it all stop.
I have been waiting very patiently for the powers to rouse themselves: “We hear you, alright, … but you are an ignorant, angry mob … and you are not thinking clearly … and Trump is simply not an option.”
Not that it will be anything this overt, but I like to think that many persons of global influence are pointing out to Mr. Ryan the incongruity of his support for a candidate he admits is refusing to abide by the rules, both moral and legal.
Hillary Clinton does not abide by “the rules.”
Bill Clinton does not abide by “the rules.”
Barack Obama has not been abiding by “the rules.”
Bernie sanders couldn’t even abide by “the rules” in a commune.
It isn’t clear to me that that the reports about Clinton’s e-mails endangering CIA operatives are accurate, Tina:
A handful of emails forwarded to Hillary Clinton’s personal server while she was secretary of state contained references to undercover CIA officers — including one who was killed by a suicide attack in Afghanistan, according to U.S. officials who have reviewed them.
But contrary to some published reports, three officials said there was no email on Clinton’s server that directly revealed the identity of an undercover intelligence operative. Rather, they said, State Department and other officials attempted to make veiled references to intelligence officers in the emails — references that were deemed classified when the messages were being reviewed years later for public release.
Image: U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton takes a question during a campaign rally in Derry, New Hampshire
Hillary Clinton takes a question at a rally in New Hampshire on Feb. 3, 2016. ADREES LATIF / Reuters
In one case, an official said, an undercover CIA officer was referred to as a State Department official with the word “State,” in quotes, as if to suggest the emailer knew the officer was not actually a diplomat. In another case, an email refers to “OGA” for “other government agency,” a common reference to the CIA. Yet another now-classified email chain originated with a member of the CIA director’s staff, leading some officials to question how Clinton could be blamed.
Related: Judge Sets Hearing Date in Clinton Email Case
Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said no intelligence officer had been identified in the emails, and that misleading details from the emails were being leaked to hurt the candidate.
“This shows yet again how the leaking of selective details gives a completely false impression about what is actually contained in the emails forwarded to Hillary Clinton,” said Fallon. “Whenever the full contents of these emails are learned, there is invariably less than meets the eye.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-emails-held-indirect-references-undercover-cia-officers-n510741
This article also casts doubt on the claims.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/06/05/hillary-clintons-email-is-the-foia-security-review-endangering-cia-officers/
Dick Morris, writing at Jewish World Review:
What keeps the media from hammering Hillary on this MAJOR scandal?
A. They are in bed with Hillary and want to help get her elected.
B. she makes sure they don;t have much exposure to her.
C. when she does take questions they are scripted, as are her answers.
Dick Morris, Tina? As in…”disgraced laughingstock Dick Morris,” whom the betters in your party don’t event want to be seen with?
Embarrassing. I won’t read it.
Jonathan Turley, a respected democrat lawyer wrote
As long as we’re going to continue in this distraction it’s important to recall remarks made by Justice Sotomayer prior to being considered for appointment to the SC:
Jack I agree Trump must “up his game.” He can make the same points he has in his head without making remarks he must later explain if he will just pause before he speaks to collect his thoughts.
The media pushed to make this an ongoing “hot” campaign topic. Trump’s willingness to engage with the media is a double edged sword. He must find a way to turn this conversation back to topics that matter to the American people.
Hillary’s unwillingness to engage allows her some measure of cover for her own personal scandals as a public official. Benghazi and her compromised unethical email server are certainly more relevant to the contest than Trumps personal legal problems but she offers almost zero opportunity for the press to question her.
We should be talking about Hillary Clinton’s failures at state and the failures of the Obama administration both on foreign affairs and the economy.
In this instance Trump has not made the best use of the media…time to “up his game!”
“In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech ….?”
And this is pertinent because … they are both Hispanic? That would be yet another racist proposition.
You guys really don’t get it, at all, do you?
However, judges have biases. They are human. But our legal system is based on, among other things, the idea that a person whose intellect and education brings them to such an exalted position has the wherewithal to curb their personal biases for the public good. And when a judge is proven, that is proven, unable, they are, theoretically, removed.
But as maintaining civic faith in this system is vitally important, we cannot have people casting spurious, racist, and baseless aspersions. And as there is nothing legally wrong with Curiel’s rulings to date (per the legal punditry), the future of the republic requires that The ELE (who is really living up to the sobriquet) be properly stomped for this.
Gonzalo Curiel is a member of a racist organization — the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association.
He might as well be a member of the San Diego Ku Klux Klan Lawyers Association.
Don’t you ever feel like stopping yourself from saying ridiculous things? Who has La Raza lynched? Who have they advocated should be denied their civil rights?
Hmmm, Chris is arguing that true racism is measured by violence and denial of civil rights. I note that La Raza has been at the core of violent confrontations with Trump supporters and has denied their rights to peaceably assemble without the threat of violence and intimidation. They haven’t lynched anyone yet so they could not possibly be vile racists, right?
Trump hasn’t lynched anyone yet either nor denied anyone their civil rights, so by Chris’ criteria, he could not possibly be a racist.
Chris, allow me to state that one does not have to lynch someone to be vile racist or the participate in a vile racist organization YOU JACKASS.
Educate yourself about La Raza or keep you head stuck up your nether region. It makes no difference to me if you remain stupid and ignorant and ignore La Raza’s (and MEChA’s) racist core and manifesto.
Hey, the more idiotically and obliviously hypocritical you are, the more laughs for me! Keep up the good work, unintentional comedian.
Chris forgave that old KKK member Byrd, who quite likely participated in lynchings, because he renounced his former views, even though he continued to be decidedly un-PC…used the “N” word on TV.
MSN:
Wikipedia:
Sure seems to be a double standard.
Tina, if Trump apologizes for his racism, then spends decades championing civil rights causes, in a complete reversal of his previous discriminatory policies–as Byrd did–and I still don’t forgive him, then you can complain of a “double standard.” Until then, feel satisfied that I am applying the exact same standard, and Trump simply falls short.
Pie: “Hmmm, Chris is arguing that true racism is measured by violence and denial of civil rights.”
No, Pie, my response was in reply to your comparison between La Raza and the KKK. Of course one can be a racist without doing those things.
“I note that La Raza has been at the core of violent confrontations with Trump supporters and has denied their rights to peaceably assemble without the threat of violence and intimidation.”
Has the organization itself advocated these violent confrontations, or was it individual members who took these actions?
“They haven’t lynched anyone yet so they could not possibly be vile racists, right?”
Sure they could. But it is still ridiculous to compare them to the KKK.
“Trump hasn’t lynched anyone yet either nor denied anyone their civil rights, so by Chris’ criteria, he could not possibly be a racist.”
Sure he could. But it would be ridiculous to compare him to the KKK.
“Chris, allow me to state that one does not have to lynch someone to be vile racist or the participate in a vile racist organization YOU JACKASS.”
You sure are reacting strongly to something I never said.
“Educate yourself about La Raza or keep you head stuck up your nether region.”
So your complete inability to prove your charge of racism makes it my responsibility to “educate myself” on your baseless claim?
Chris do you honestly believe that every organization is always on the up and up or that if they were organizing violent protests, for instance, they would trumpet it?
You refuse to get how deeply covert and corrupt the leadership and its various organs are…and how anti-American.
La Raza isn’t dangerous because it helps people, which it does, it is dangerous because it is covertly subversive.
The mafia had legitimate businesses too.
Saul Alinsky funds thousands of left wing 501c4’s created explicitly for the purpose of furthering the left wing political agenda. None of those little operations ever come under scrutiny by the IRS nor, I would bet, have they been audited for illegal political activity:
Of course it is not ridiculous to compare La Raza to the KKK, both are vile racist organizations who believe in their racial supremacy.
Only a hair splitting twit like you would try and draw a distinction. Why? Because you approve of the La Raza racists.
My claim is not baseless, read what La Raza has had in their charter and has said about themselves. I am not going to hold your hand on this Chrs, either you have the intellectual curiosity and ability, or you are just another ****-for-brains progressive with his head up his …
Re : “You sure are reacting strongly to something I never said.”
LMAO.
Dear boy, you posted “Who has La Raza lynched? Who have they advocated should be denied their civil rights?”
I was merely responding with an observation you seemed to have missed with your idiotic defense of the racist organization La Raza who hasn’t lynched anyone (yet).
“Has the organization itself advocated these violent confrontations, or was it individual members who took these actions?”
Now you are being deliberately obtuse. La Raza is the organizing force behind the violent protests.
I got sh*t to do today, Pie. You want me to see what part of the La Raza charter you’re referring to, link to it. Or are accusations of racism without evidence only wrong when liberals make them?
I have to laugh at Chris’ foaming at the mouth anti-Trump campaign, citing Pau Ryan (*eyeroll*) and quoting Ramesh Ponnuru. Chris, you really ought to get a grip before you burst a blood vessel.
It is a well known fact National Review has long been on the anti-Trump bandwagon, and I agree with much of what they have had to say. I too do not like Trump.
Ponnuru is entitled to his perception and opinion of Trump and is welcome to it, but the bottom line is this — Hillary or Sanders would be far more dangerous and destructive as POTUS than Trump. The #NeverTrump crowd had better wake up to that reality or this country will be sunk for the next 100 years and be turned from the economic powerhouse it once was and into a bankrupt third world nation. Venezuela is coming if this keeps up.
End of story.
You’re not just wrong, you’re obviously wrong. Sanders and Clinton are people whose political philosophies you disagree with, but they are still within the mainstream of American politics and normal human behavior. They are, at worst, known evils. You know how to handle them. Trump is an unpredictable child, and you don’t give an unpredictable child nuclear codes.
Also: it was just reported today that Donald Trump may have tried to bribe a judge.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e16a8223c24048d290883370dc6abe5b/florida-ag-asked-trump-donation-nixing-fraud-case
This is exactly the type of corruption and conflict of interest Republicans have been trying to accuse the Clintons of for years. I’m sure Trump’s supporters will look the other way on this one, though.
Thanks for posting comment to Post Scripts Chdis. You write: “but they are still within the mainstream of American politics and normal human behavior.”
I have to ask, “What rock have you been living under?”
The Clinton’s have a potential rap sheet that that would embarrass the most hardened of criminals. There is nothing “main stream” about this opportunistic pair of power hungry money grubbers. They are also both pathological liars
From your link we discover “20 people complained in Florida.”
The main complainant in the case currently before the court had to withdraw because of a video recording of her gushing about the Trump courses. Trump says there are thousands of similar testimonials that are not being allowed into evidence. If there’s one, there’s more. Why are they being barred from court?
Chris says I am WRONG!!!
(Running around in circles naked tearing my hair out.)
I AM WRONG! I AM WRONG! I AM WRONG! I AM WRONG! …
Evidently Chis thinks that being within the “mainstream of American politics” is the ultimate qualifier. CHRIS HAS SPOKEN!
This explains why approval of Congress and the president are at an all time high.
ALLEGEDLY, tried to bribe a judge. (Hehehehehehehe.) Bribing a judge is a criminal offense, where is the indictment?
Chris, you are so great at playing the fool. You don’t even have to “play”, it comes naturally. It IS you.
Rats! He has, quite uncharacteristically, backed off.
NYT – Donald J. Trump, who said last week that a Mexican-American judge was biased against him because of his heritage, said on Tuesday that his remarks had been “misconstrued” and that he did not think that the judge’s ethnicity created a conflict of interest.
“I do not feel that one’s heritage makes them incapable of being impartial,” Mr. Trump said in a long statement in which he continued to raise questions about his treatment in the Trump University case.
Mr. Trump created a firestorm last week when he suggested that Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, who was born in Indiana, was not handling his case fairly because of his immigration policies, which include deporting immigrants in the country illegally and building a wall along the southern border. The remarks were considered racist by Democrats and Republicans, several of whom distanced themselves from the presumptive Republican nominee.
Mr. Trump said in his statement that he had many friends of Hispanic and Mexican descent and that he thought that his words had been twisted. The reversal was a rare one for Mr. Trump, who has tended to dig in after his provocative remarks have stirred controversy. However, after many Republicans started to panic about the direction of his campaign he tempered his tone toward the judge.
“It is unfortunate that my comments have been misconstrued as a categorical attack against people of Mexican heritage,” Mr. Trump said. “I am friends with and employ thousands of people of Mexican and Hispanic descent.”
***
1) If he doesn’t stop saying “some of my best friends are ….” I am gonna puke. Does no one tell him things? I mean, that is probably the most stereotypically, WASPy, expression of bigotry that ever was. Ick.
2) And he sure do employ Hispanics, most of them here on those “I-don’t-want-to-pay-American-wage” visas that he has told you he will ban. Suckers.
Libby can you prove that last rather nasty statement?
http://nyti.ms/1QGI1vN
Except it turns out he prefers Romanians. He likes their accents?
You’re in for some rough months, I think.
You know the answer Libby, your side provides it when they explain why the nation needs open borders and “undocumented” workers: “They’re doing the jobs that Americans won’t do.”
Now if he was hiring people illegally…
But an excerpt from your faux “scandalous” NYT piece:
Since his proposal is something that would impact his business, possibly negatively, what’s your problem? Oh that bad man, he puts what he thinks is best for the country ahead of himself? Scandalous!
When he does it, I’ll take it back.
But don’t you think it’s odd that he would propose to ban a visa he is making use of? If he truly thought it was bad for the country, he would not be, right?
Paul Ryan also emphatically said today that the House could work much better with Trump to get their agenda passed.
There is a lot more to the Laureate University deal too. It will come out eventually. A woman, a teacher, called Sean Hannity this afternoon and spoke about her attempt to bring a class action suite against Laureate. She was told her course would cost somewhere in the $30K range and she ended up spending $75K. She also said it was extremely difficult to get straight answers and dealing with them was a trying experience. Hannity indicated interest in having her and others involved on his TV show. maybe Lavin’s group will take up her cause.
Breitbart taps the Washington Post and Bloomberg in a story about Laureate Education Inc.:
Ever notice how Chris is always “right” and everybody else is “wrong?” Interesting how that works.
Not “everybody else.” Just wrong people, like you.
HAH!
What a jerk. Always the arrogant jerk! 😀
At least there is one person thinks highly of Chris — Chris.
Whoa! The Donald is leashed! “Listen mister, from now til November you read sedately off the teleprompter. You do not utter a word we haven’t written for you.”
Giggle.
Yes, a wise decision. Off the cuff works in New York where their “walking here” style can be summarized with a raised finger. Not cool for the leader of the nation.
He’s still better than Jekyll and Hyde Hillary, wooden and scripted until she’s confronted with a look, question, or situation she doesn’t “allow”…then she’s a shrieking shrew who throws things!
And who are you to deride teleprompter use. The current occupant turns into Porky Pig off tele-P! He’s even fond of the word, “folks,” as in, “B’th, b’th,b’th that’s all folks!
“And who are you to deride teleprompter use.”
Are you kidding me!!! Honey, he dishes it out, he can learn to take it.
And you too. I’ve been listening to you harp on this matter-of-no-significance for SEVEN YEARS. It would be nice if I were mature enough to refrain from rubbing your nose in it. Alas, I am not.
Giggle.
“I’ve been listening to you harp on this matter-of-no-significance for SEVEN YEARS. ”
Fitting since I had to listen to you harp about “the shrub” for the eight years! (Adult version of “You started it!)
“It would be nice if I were mature enough to refrain from rubbing your nose in it.”
No, that would be totally out of character.
Looks like we’re stuck doing this dance.
Giggle?
More like a “Snort”
I said long ago, though, I do like you Libby. It’s a shame you are such an intolerable liberal.
It’s been a long day…night all…Zzzzzzzzzzzzz
“Fitting since I had to listen to you harp about “the shrub” for the eight years.”
Hardly. The Shrub fomented the destruction of Iraq and the wreck of the global economy. The Bushisms were entertaining, but will never match. The O-man has spent seven-plus years tying to clean up the mess, with no help from either the Dem or Repub Congresses … or you … with your teleprompter fixation … masking racist distress.
Geez, where are your priorities, woman?