That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Go back to Juarez, Pablo!tgb wrote:If any one thing proves to be his undoing, it may be the veterans scam he ran.
Stuff written by a hater...probably of Mexican origin.]
Of course not. The only question is how much this slows his momentum, if it gets slowed down at all. Otherwise you're going to be making up the guest room for tlr, myself, 2 dogs and 2 cats.tjg_marantz wrote:Surprised?
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
I think Trump is too polarizing for any number of scandals to touch him. Everyone already either loves him or hates him and it's nigh on impossible to nudge someone from one camp to the other. The haters can document one charge after another, and his fans love each new ad hominem response.tgb wrote:Of course not. The only question is how much this slows his momentum, if it gets slowed down at all. Otherwise you're going to be making up the guest room for tlr, myself, 2 dogs and 2 cats.tjg_marantz wrote:Surprised?
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Holman wrote:The story came out not too long ago that Trump applied and qualified for a specific NYC tax exemption available only to those with incomes under $500,000. That's still rich, but it's not multi-billionaire money by any stretch.
I tend to believe people have always been mean and hateful. We just didn't see it as much until social media started magnifying everything.YellowKing wrote:I was thinking today about how nasty social media has made people towards each other. You've got people foaming at the mouth the prosecute that mom whose kid fell into the gorilla pen at that zoo, without knowing any of the facts around what happened. If anyone says anything that could even be slightly construed as racist/sexist/homophobic - even unintentionally, they are met with a lynch mob. You have people getting death threats for delaying a game. You've got directors lashing out at fans for criticizing a movie. Everyone seems to be at each other's throats CONSTANTLY. It's utter insanity.
Is Trump a product of this new world order? Where people are just mean and hateful towards each other, and it's acceptable because we see it every day on our Facebook feeds? Have we become numb to it? Do we take some sort of cruel delight in it?
I don't think it's coincidence that the growing divide between the political parties has just gotten more and more extreme as the internet age has dawned. We've given a voice to the fringe element, and the internet is a powerful enough tool to make those voices heard above all else.
I don't think people are any different (in terms of human nature). People are judgey assholes as a group - it always staggers my mind how people immediately think they know better than people who were on the scene and who have relevant training and firsthand knowledge.YellowKing wrote:I was thinking today about how nasty social media has made people towards each other. You've got people foaming at the mouth the prosecute that mom whose kid fell into the gorilla pen at that zoo, without knowing any of the facts around what happened. If anyone says anything that could even be slightly construed as racist/sexist/homophobic - even unintentionally, they are met with a lynch mob. You have people getting death threats for delaying a game. You've got directors lashing out at fans for criticizing a movie. Everyone seems to be at each other's throats CONSTANTLY. It's utter insanity.
Is Trump a product of this new world order? Where people are just mean and hateful towards each other, and it's acceptable because we see it every day on our Facebook feeds? Have we become numb to it? Do we take some sort of cruel delight in it?
I don't think it's coincidence that the growing divide between the political parties has just gotten more and more extreme as the internet age has dawned. We've given a voice to the fringe element, and the internet is a powerful enough tool to make those voices heard above all else.
I don't think that tax returns could take Trump. Most likely they would show that he is merely wealthy as opposed to a billionaire, which would deflate his "winner" bubble slightly, but I am inclined to doubt that his core supporters care that much about him being merely ordinarily rich.Kraken wrote:That's the prevailing suspicion, and it could take him down a peg with a large number of fans. If anything can drag him down it's going to be a self-inflicted wound -- he is impervious to charges from liberals, The Establishment, "the media", Hillary, or any other bogeymen.
Substitute "country" for "company" on that first table of contents page and you have Trump's campaign in a nutshell - Amerikka Uber Alles.Holman wrote:If no one gets Alec Baldwin and Al Pacino into a Glengarry Glen Ross skit with the Trump University playbook, I will have lost all faith in Liberal Hollywood.
That would disqualify every political Tweeter...oh! Good idea.hepcat wrote:If Clinton wins, her first act should be to push through a law that anyone who refers to themselves in the third person should be forbidden from holding any office.
Last summer, Donald Trump explained his past habit of making campaign contributions to Democratic Party elected officials as being part of a cynical effort to bribe them to advance his business interests. Perhaps coincidentally, it turns out that a couple of state attorneys general who considered formal fraud investigations into his fake university received Trump campaign contributions after deciding to drop them.
...
That's what Jeff Horwitz and Michael Biesecker report for the Associated Press in their story on fraud probes into Trump University by state attorneys general:
Eric Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York, launched a lawsuit against Trump University in 2013 that is still pending. And Horwitz and Biesecker report that "Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi briefly considered joining with Schneiderman in a multi-state suit against Trump University."As scores of students complained that Trump University was a ripoff, the Better Business Bureau in 2010 gave the school a D-minus, its second-lowest grade. State regulators also began to take notice.
The office of then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican, opened a civil investigation of "possibly deceptive trade practices." Abbott's probe was quietly dropped in 2010 when Trump University agreed to end its operations in Texas. Trump subsequently donated $35,000 to Abbott's successful gubernatorial campaign, according to records.
But it ultimately didn't happen:
Three days after Bondi's spokeswoman was quoted in local media reports as saying the office was reviewing the New York lawsuit, the Donald J. Trump Foundation made a $25,000 contribution to a political fundraising committee supporting Bondi's re-election campaign. Bondi, a Republican, soon dropped her investigation, citing insufficient grounds to proceed.
Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different – they are dangerously incoherent. They’re not even really ideas – just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds, and outright lies.
He is not just unprepared – he is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility.
This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes – because it’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.
...
This is someone who has threatened to abandon our allies in NATO – the countries that work with us to root out terrorists abroad before they strike us at home.
He believes we can treat the U.S. economy like one of his casinos and default on our debts to the rest of the world, which would cause an economic catastrophe far worse than anything we experienced in 2008.
He has said that he would order our military to carry out torture and the murder of civilians who are related to suspected terrorists – even though those are war crimes.
He says he doesn’t have to listen to our generals or our admirals, our ambassadors and other high officials, because he has – quote – “a very good brain.”
...
He says climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese, and he has the gall to say that prisoners of war like John McCain aren’t heroes.
He praises dictators like Vladimir Putin and picks fights with our friends – including the British prime minister, the mayor of London, the German chancellor, the president of Mexico and the Pope.
...
And to top it off, he believes America is weak. An embarrassment. He called our military a disaster. He said we are – and I quote – a “third-world country.” And he’s been saying things like that for decades.
Those are the words my friends of someone who doesn’t understand America or the world.
Right now they have to embrace Trump because they have no choice. He's the top of the ticket.Fitzy wrote:Unless Trump can turn around his reputation for racism, how does the Republican Party embracing him not hurt them in the long run?
As a lawyer, maybe my own bias is coming into play here, but attacking the judge and claiming he has "an inherent conflict of interest" because he's "Mexican"*** is a line that just can't be crossed. Especially by someone who wants to be POTUS. Anyone who supports Trump -- even as the lesser of two evils -- needs to get their head examined.Donald Trump on Thursday escalated his attacks on the federal judge presiding over civil fraud lawsuits against Trump University, amid criticism from legal observers who say the presumptive GOP presidential nominee’s comments are an unusual affront on an independent judiciary.
In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,” Mr. Trump said.
As a non-lawyer I thought it was *way* over the line and again points out the guy has VERY SUSPECT judgement. Just in the abstract his "theory" around judicial conflict is crazy. So any public figure just has to figure out any possible appearance of conflict that a judge might have, make public statements that put that conflict into play, wait for an inevitable adverse ruling (since every case likely has at least one), and then claim bias against them. That'll definitely lead to more confidence in the integrity of the legal system. *FACEPALM*Kurth wrote:As a lawyer, maybe my own bias is coming into play here, but attacking the judge and claiming he has "an inherent conflict of interest" because he's "Mexican"*** is a line that just can't be crossed. Especially by someone who wants to be POTUS. Anyone who supports Drumpf -- even as the lesser of two evils -- needs to get their head examined.
Well that image is going to haunt my dreams tonight... thanks a lot.hepcat wrote:I keep imagining Ryan curled up on the floor of his shower while turning up the hot water at intervals and moaning, "Can't get clean...can't."
The state’s consumer protection division, working for then-Attorney General Greg Abbott, sought permission in May 2010 to pursue what it believed was a strong case to sue Donald Trump and Trump University for bilking Texas taxpayers out of more than $2.6 million.
But that lawsuit was never filed.
Instead, the investigation Abbott had opened into the now-defunct real estate training program and Trump, now the presumptive Republican nominee for president, was dropped and Trump University agreed to cease operations in Texas.
The former deputy director of Abbott’s Consumer Protection Division now alleges that the attorney general office’s decision to quash the lawsuit against Trump — later a major donor to Abbott’s campaign — was a political move that left Texas consumers “high and dry.”
“The decision not to sue him was political,” John Owens told The Dallas Morning News. “Had [Trump] not been involved in politics to the extent he was at the time, we would have gotten approval. Had he been just some other scam artist, we would have sued him.”
Donald Trump has become the standard-bearer of the Republican Party, defeating all 16 other GOP presidential candidates ahead of Tuesday’s primary. Now the majority of them support him, as do other prominent Republicans and millions of American voters who see in him hope after years of feeling left out or left behind by a country changing too much too quickly in a time of too little prosperity.
Yet there are so many ways Trump is unfit to lead the free world. Just days ago, in San Diego, Trump singled out U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s handling of a case involving Trump University — and Curiel’s heritage. Of the Indiana-born ex-U.S. prosecutor who once prosecuted Mexican cartels, Trump said Curiel “happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great, I think that’s fine.”
We believe in a more unifying message.
This editorial board is torn about advising our Republican readers. We can’t endorse Trump for reasons we’ve documented repeatedly: belligerence, casual cruelty, incoherence on policy issues. We can’t recommend voters don’t vote at all because that’s a waste, and we can’t suggest voting for another candidate because it accomplishes nothing.
So what do Republicans who don’t accept Trump’s style or substance — including all three Bushes, Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, George Will and Charles Krauthammer — do? Certainly, the Republican Party has an argument for the presidency. Today, the principles of the party of Ronald Reagan are as relevant as ever: a stable border, a strong military and economic policy focused on low taxes, less bureaucracy and limited regulation.
Those are not the principles of Trump, who promises to build a border wall, recommends torture and killing terrorists’ families and speculates about reneging on our debts. What would happen to Reagan’s party in the hands of Trump? What would happen to San Diego?
We live near the busiest border crossing in the Western Hemisphere, among one of the world’s heaviest concentrations of military personnel. Our border allows a dangerous trade in drugs and guns, and an underground worker economy, while it also enables billions of dollars in trade and cultural connections that form one region. We are one of the world’s safest cities, yet two of the 9/11 terrorists lived among us before flying a plane into the Pentagon. We are stereotyped as white and predictable; yet 30 languages and 80 dialects are spoken — and celebrated — in City Heights alone.
Ours is a city of complexity and balance, of possibility. Everyone would like to live in America’s finest city. But neither problems nor opportunities improve with sloganeering or demagoguery.
Reagan never gave a speech that didn’t invoke America’s greatness. “Tear down this wall,” the Great Communicator famously once said. “The wall cannot withstand freedom.”
Trump is the Great Excommunicator. He wants Muslims banned from the country; a wall built around our southern border; global deals ripped up and renegotiated; American made “great again” through isolationism.
In his San Diego campaign speech, Trump urged California supporters to vote for him, saying, “We want the mandate. We have to have a mandate.”
He doesn’t deserve the party’s mandate.
If you are voting in the GOP primary Tuesday, write in Ronald Reagan for president.
Maybe Trump will get the message.
Editor's note: This editorial was updated Thursday afternoon to remove Paul Ryan from the list of prominent Republicans who have not endorsed Trump because Ryan endorsed him.
Was thinking about Hillary's email issues with regards to Classified Intel and pictured the Donald and his mouth in a similar position as Secretary of State.Holman wrote:Clinton's speech on Donald Trump and national security is worth reading in its entirety.
Some snippets:
Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different – they are dangerously incoherent. They’re not even really ideas – just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds, and outright lies.
He is not just unprepared – he is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility.
This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes – because it’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.
...
This is someone who has threatened to abandon our allies in NATO – the countries that work with us to root out terrorists abroad before they strike us at home.
He believes we can treat the U.S. economy like one of his casinos and default on our debts to the rest of the world, which would cause an economic catastrophe far worse than anything we experienced in 2008.
He has said that he would order our military to carry out torture and the murder of civilians who are related to suspected terrorists – even though those are war crimes.
He says he doesn’t have to listen to our generals or our admirals, our ambassadors and other high officials, because he has – quote – “a very good brain.”
...
He says climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese, and he has the gall to say that prisoners of war like John McCain aren’t heroes.
He praises dictators like Vladimir Putin and picks fights with our friends – including the British prime minister, the mayor of London, the German chancellor, the president of Mexico and the Pope.
...
And to top it off, he believes America is weak. An embarrassment. He called our military a disaster. He said we are – and I quote – a “third-world country.” And he’s been saying things like that for decades.
Those are the words my friends of someone who doesn’t understand America or the world.