"Donald Trump and The Judge"

[AGBF]

I had the dubious pleasure of hearing much of Donald Trump's press conference live on the radio today and some of it was shocking, even by Trump standards. An editorial in, "The New York Times" puts the issue very succinctly.

"Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy presents decent people everywhere with a dilemma: Sprayed with an open fire hose of schoolyard insults, locker-room vulgarities and bizarre policy pitches by the presumptive Republican nominee, they must make hard choices. Is this latest comment so outrageous, so much worse than all the others, as to require its own response?

Speak up too often and you risk sounding like a car alarm, so urgent and yet so familiar that residents no longer hear it. But don’t speak up often enough and you risk turning the unacceptable into the unremarkable."

So what did he do this time? He, as a presidential candidate, attacked a federal judge who is about to rule on a case in which he is a litigant.

"In a rambling, 11-minute stream of vitriol, Mr. Trump, who has attacked Judge Curiel before, called him 'very hostile' and a 'hater of Donald Trump,' and said he 'should be ashamed of himself. I think it’s a disgrace that he’s doing this.'

One would think Mr. Trump, whose sister is a federal appellate judge, would know how self-destructive it is for any litigant anywhere to attack the judge hearing his or her case. But Mr. Trump is not any litigant; he is running to be president of the United States — a job that requires at least a glancing understanding of the American system of government, in particular a respect for the separation of powers. When Mr. Trump complains that he is 'getting railroaded' by a 'rigged' legal system, he is saying in effect that an entire branch of government is corrupt."

...​

"For good measure, Mr. Trump added that Judge Curiel 'happens to be, we believe, Mexican.' False; the judge is from Indiana. But facts are, as always, beside the point for Mr. Trump, who reassured his audience that 'the Mexicans are going to end up loving Donald Trump when I give all these jobs.' (Presumably he was not referring to those he has promised to deport if he is elected.)

In a masterpiece of understatement, Judge Curiel, who is prevented by ethical rules from responding directly to comments like these, noted in his order that Mr. Trump 'has placed the integrity of these court proceedings at issue.'"

For the entire editorial, click here...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/opinion/donald-trump-and-the-judge.html?ribbon-ad-idx=19&rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=article

 

[AGBF]

This video helped me to understand what the case about Trump University is all about. Perhaps some of you have been following it, but I had not been.

Link...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp4AyNNOdT4

 

[KaeKae]

I think I just lost a few brain cells just listening to that.

Who writes his speeches and preps him for questions? Apparently no one. I've heard better prepared speakers during elementary school Student Council elections. I think they'd do better in a Q&A session, too.

 

[caf]

Trump's protestations aside, US D. Ct. Judge Curiel is doing what trial court judges do in pre-trial proceedings. There was a disclosure or discovery dispute because Trump or Trump U. didn't want to turn over documents. The court decided the dispute, ordering them to turn over the documents. Happens all the time. Maybe Trump is trying to dq the judge. But I don't think the trial judge will go for it.

And Trump is incredibly disrespectful to the court, but that's Trump. And this is the guy that millions want leading our country. Wow.

 

[AGBF]

Some legal scholars have found Donald Trump's actions to be a threat to the rule of law and the separation of powers. Here is an excerpt about the matter from an article in, "The New York Times".

"WASHINGTON — Donald J. Trump’s blustery attacks on the press, complaints about the judicial system and bold claims of presidential power collectively sketch out a constitutional worldview that shows contempt for the First Amendment, the separation of powers and the rule of law, legal experts across the political spectrum say.

Even as much of the Republican political establishment lines up behind its presumptive nominee, many conservative and libertarian legal scholars warn that electing Mr. Trump is a recipe for a constitutional crisis.

'Who knows what Donald Trump with a pen and phone would do?' asked Ilya Shapiro, a lawyer with the libertarian Cato Institute.

With five months to go before Election Day, Mr. Trump has already said he would “loosen” libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations. He has threatened to sic federal regulators on his critics. He has encouraged rough treatment of demonstrators.

His proposal to bar Muslims from entry into the country tests the Constitution’s guarantees of religious freedom, due process and equal protection.

And, in what was a tipping point for some, he attacked Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the Federal District Court in San Diego, who is overseeing two class actions against Trump University.

Mr. Trump accused the judge of bias, falsely said he was Mexican and seemed to issue a threat.

'They ought to look into Judge Curiel, because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace,' Mr. Trump said. 'O.K.? But we will come back in November. Wouldn’t that be wild if I am president and come back and do a civil case?'

David Post, a retired law professor who now writes for the Volokh Conspiracy, a conservative-leaning law blog, said those comments had crossed a line.

'This is how authoritarianism starts, with a president who does not respect the judiciary,” Mr. Post said. “You can criticize the judicial system, you can criticize individual cases, you can criticize individual judges. But the president has to be clear that the law is the law and that he enforces the law. That is his constitutional obligation.'

'If he is signaling that that is not his position, that’s a very serious constitutional problem,' Mr. Post said."

Link to article...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-constitution-power.html

 

[AGBF]

Here is some more information about the federal judge whom Donald Trump is harassing. This is excerpted from an article in, "The New York Times".

"For much of a year, Gonzalo P. Curiel, then a federal prosecutor in California, lived officially in hiding.

He hunkered down for a while on a naval base and in other closely guarded locations under the protection of United States marshals. Even his siblings did not know exactly where he was at times.

The reason: In a secretly taped conversation inside a San Diego prison, a man accused of being a gunman for a Mexican drug cartel said that he had received permission from his superiors to have Mr. Curiel assassinated.

'It was kind of scary,' said Mr. Curiel’s brother Raul. 'He had to be protected. He always had one or two bodyguards with him.'

Nearly 20 years later, Gonzalo Curiel, now a federal judge, is being targeted in a very different way.

The presiding judge in a lawsuit filed by former students of Trump University, he has been called a 'hater' of Mr. Trump by the presumptive Republican presidential nominee himself. At a rally last week, Mr. Trump said the judge 'happens to be, we believe, Mexican,' suggesting that he was biased because of Mr. Trump’s calls to build a wall along the border to prevent illegal immigration. Angry supporters have been calling the judge’s chambers.

Mr. Trump repeated his argument in an interview on Thursday. 'I’m building the wall, I’m building the wall,' Mr. Trump said. 'I have a Mexican judge. He’s of Mexican heritage. He should have recused himself, not only for that, for other things.'

{snip}​

Judge Curiel was a hard-charging prosecutor at a time when the American authorities were trying to help Mexico confront the Arellano Félix brothers, the heads of a murderous cartel that controlled a torrent of narcotics coming into the Western United States. In a period when Mexico was reluctant to send its drug lords for trial in the United States, Mr. Curiel’s job involved working with informants and sometimes-corrupt Mexican officials to win convictions in this country and in Mexico.

In one 1990s case, when he was pushing to extradite two men accused of being Arellano gunmen to Mexico, he found himself defending witness testimony against the men that had most likely been obtained through torture by the Mexican police.

'The government is not here to deny there is a possibility of torture,' Mr. Curiel told a federal judge. 'But the forum for those allegations to be aired is the government of Mexico.'

The Arellano Félix cartel kept Mr. Curiel in its sights. One of the suspected gunmen, according to court filings, was recorded in prison saying he 'had requested and received permission from the leaders of the Arellano cartel to have Curiel murdered,' forcing Mr. Curiel to live for a while under guard.

{snip}​

Mr. Vega, now a corporate lawyer who was the best man at Judge Curiel’s wedding, said he did not think that the attacks by Mr. Trump would taint the judge’s approach to the case.

But, remembering when his friend, then a prosecutor, arrived at his house for a barbecue flanked by bodyguards, Mr. Vega noted the irony of Mr. Trump’s criticizing someone who had risked his life to slow the flow of drugs coming from Mexico into the United States — an issue that is dear to Mr. Trump.

'A lot of us have never been tested like that,' Mr. Vega said."

Link to article...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-university-judge-gonzalo-curiel.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&hp

 

[AGBF]

Apparently Donald Trump may need to handpick the judge for his civil case so that he can get a judge who is created in his own image. He had said that the "Mexican" judge (meaning an American judge of Mexican descent) must be biased against him. Now has said that a Muslim judge would also be biased against him. Can you imagine how many black people have had their cases heard by judges who are white? How many white people have had their cases heard by judges who are black? How many other people of different ethnicities who are judges have had to set aside biases as they put on a judge's robes? And yet he presumes to be able to choose by race, religion, and ethnicity alone?

Could a Muslim Judge Be Neutral to Donald Trump? He Doesn’t Think So

By MAGGIE HABERMANJUNE 5, 2016

"Donald J. Trump said Sunday that a Muslim judge might have trouble remaining neutral in a lawsuit against him, extending his race-based criticism of the jurist overseeing the case to include religion and opening another path for Democrats who have criticized him sharply for his remarks.

The comments, in an interview with John Dickerson, the host of CBS’s 'Face the Nation,' come amid growing disapproval from fellow Republicans over his attacks on Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, a federal judge in California overseeing a suit against the defunct Trump University, whose impartiality Mr. Trump questioned based on the judge’s Mexican heritage.

And they came as Republicans, concerned about how his remarks could harm their ability to retain control of the United States Senate and have a detrimental effect in races further down the ballot, continue to grapple with how to distance themselves from Mr. Trump’s rhetoric without alienating his die-hard voters.

Mr. Trump has called Judge Curiel, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, a 'Mexican' and said he has a 'conflict of interest' in the case because of Mr. Trump’s proposed border wall with Mexico. The case that Judge Curiel is overseeing is a class-action suit in which students of the for-profit operation say they were defrauded.

Mr. Dickerson asked Mr. Trump if, in his view, a Muslim judge would be similarly biased because of the Republican presumptive nominee’s call for a ban on Muslim immigrants. 'It’s possible, yes,' Mr. Trump said.'Yeah. That would be possible. Absolutely.'

When Mr. Dickerson noted that there is a tradition in the United States, a nation of immigrants, against judging people based on their heritage, Mr. Trump replied: 'I’m not talking about tradition. I’m talking about common sense, O.K.?'”

In my opinion, there should be far more outrage and angst about this blatant disregard for the rule of law and the Constitution than about any other issue except trump's incompetence to handle foreign policy.

His disregard for the rule of law puts the United States in jeopardy of becoming just another junta ruled by another jefe, albeit a blonde one, while his foreign policy "expertise" puts us in danger of incinerating the planet before we can enjoy the fruits of his authoritarian régime.

Link to article...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/06/us/politics/could-a-muslim-judge-be-trump-neutral-trump-thinks-not.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

 

[AGBF]

This issue has really disturbed me. Yet no one else has contributed to this thread. I do not know if that means that the topic is not of interest to others on Pricescope. It is of interest to people in the Republican Party. It is of interest to, "The New York Times" which made it the subject of today's editorial.

It was also of interest to three intelligent people whose letters were published in the newspaper today. I am going to quote from two of the letters because they are written by "humans", not a professional or a committee.



Letter One

"Donald Trump, a white male German-American, feels he is entitled to determine whether or not he can be judged by a Mexican-American or by an American practicing Islam.

I, too, am a white male and work every day to overcome how I was raised, to recognize that I am not entitled to superior rights because I was born a white male of European heritage, and to act accordingly.

Whether or not Mr. Trump succeeds in getting a recusal and a new judge in the court case over Trump University, in November he will face the ultimate judges. He will not be able to get a recusal of all the voters not like him, and most will judge him not by his culture, color or creed, but by what he has said and done."

Letter Three

"Those who oppose Donald Trump have underestimated his understanding of psychology, and his ability to fuel public response. Basic prejudices, insecurities and fears exist in most humans. By exploiting these characteristics, Mr. Trump, obviously not afraid to voice such tendencies himself, gathers a following of those who suddenly have a public voice to express their inner thoughts.

Moral and ethical teaching has been sideswiped, and baser aggressiveness becomes the norm. Scary!"

As the editorial said, Donald Trump is asserting that because he is biased against Mexicans and Muslims that an American federal Judge has the obligation to recuse himself. It is only in an upside down universe that the person bringing a case is allowed to have his prejudices determine the ethnicity, race, or religion of his judge.

AGBF

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I won't leave you alone in this thread. Yes, I agree, this is an important act on the part of Trump. No doubt, its his German heritage coming out. Autocratic and demented.

I once wrote a letter to a judge on a case that was before him. (not federal) I was the main advocate for a group and usually was the person who went to court. When lawyers in the group heard I had done this, they nearly fainted. I learned quickly you cannot deal with a judge outside of the court case. The lawyers told me to expect a reprimand from the judge. But he didn't. I never did that again.

Annette

 

[monarch64]

Hi,

I won't leave you alone in this thread. Yes, I agree, this is an important act on the part of Trump. No doubt, its his German heritage coming out. Autocratic and demented.

I once wrote a letter to a judge on a case that was before him. (not federal) I was the main advocate for a group and usually was the person who went to court. When lawyers in the group heard I had done this, they nearly fainted. I learned quickly you cannot deal with a judge outside of the court case. The lawyers told me to expect a reprimand from the judge. But he didn't. I never did that again.

Annette

You edited your post before I could highlight the midsection about "why would a white male want to vote for Hillary Clinton? All she talks about is womens rights and minority rights and what she can give away." How should she go about appealing to the oh so important white male? Should she show a little more cleavage? Short skirts? Maybe she should give away free guns, I bet that would help. Gosh, if she'd just choose Sarah Palin as her running mate, she'd have it made!

 

[VRBeauty]

This action has forced even Republicans who have tried to stay out of the fray to denounce him - including Newt Gingrich, Lindsey Graham, and Paul Ryan. I know Trump's loyal core isn't going anywhere, but surely he will lose some votes over this. Most anyone can figure out the folly of saying that a judge has a conflict of interest simply because you, a defendant, chose to insult and/or pick a fight with that judge. Most anyone can see the rampant egoism and ignorance or contempt for the law Trump's statements reveal.

So, thank you, Mr. Trump for your schoolyard outburst.

Or, as political observer/comedian Andy Borowitz said, "It is unforgivable that Donald Trump has put me in the horrible position of agreeing with Newt Gingrich."

 

[AGBF]

I regret missing your initial post, Annette. However, I thank all of you, Annette, Monnie, and VRBeauty for not leaving me alone and cold in this thread.

Deb

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

Monnie,

My post was not edited. You are in the wrong thread. My post really is saying, enough men bashing in general. What is going on is retaliation against decades of punching the daylights out of men in general. JMO. Men live in this world too. I have seen a lot of change since the olden days, and men are indiscriminately bashed. That's what I meant. Less mouth would do.

Annette

 

[monarch64]

Hi,

Monnie,

My post was not edited. You are in the wrong thread. My post really is saying, enough men bashing in general. What is going on is retaliation against decades of punching the daylights out of men in general. JMO. Men live in this world too. I have seen a lot of change since the olden days, and men are indiscriminately bashed. That's what I meant. Less mouth would do.

Annette

Whoops! I read your posts in both threads back to back and got confused. Sorry about that. But since I'm here, men may be indiscriminately bashed at times, sure. There is also still an overriding attitude towards women and minorities by many that they are inferior to men. I see it all the time, and the attitude comes from men AND women. Have you heard the recent news about Brock Allen Turner, Stanford Rapist, who only received 6 months instead of 6 years for his conviction? The judge gave him a very lenient sentence based on his athleticism and young age. White male athletes are more important than white female grad students, or hadn't you heard?

 

[smitcompton]

Hi Monnie,

Yes, I did read it and it seems to me the father has the attitude you are talking about. I agree that rape and sexual assault is still a problem. Its pretty awful that the college campus is unsafe.

But, this is why I said this is "the perfect storm." Everybody's beef is addressed. I'm not blaming HC at all. Just saying why I think she won't have a constituency of white men. They wouldn't vote for any woman, I think. Resentments grow.


Annette

 

[ame]

Ok, I don't get on here a lot lately bec I am buried at work and just in general not on here enough lately bec I don't have time to dick around online. So you sure as hell would not be left on your own had I seen it sooner and had time to reply.

Anyway... the first I had even HEARD of this was yesterday on the radio news driving back from the airport and I seriously gasped and I heard it. I mean, I think he's probably one of the dimmest wits on earth, but I was just blown away. The fact that anyone is supporting him in the first place still blows my damn mind, but after that? Well, I won't say what I think of the people who do. But it's not good.

I feel like he seriously plans to appoint his sister to Supreme Court if given the chance, and that if he had his choice, he'd have her in charge of this or any other case against him or that he's brought, because he needs to have someone who will go his way at all times. The fact that he can't control which case goes to which judge, and this case happened to go to an American of Mexican descent is making him lose what little sense he still had. It's not as though someone deliberately selected someone that would incite rage in the guy, it was basically this guy's up next, here's the case.

They also reported that the Florida Atty General also had asked Trump for donation and I guess since the person received one, they declined to join the suit against him? Shady as hell. "We'd stand with our constituents, yknow, bec that's our effing job, but we'd rather get money from you."

 

[AGBF]

Textbook Definition of Racist

Ok, I don't get on here a lot lately bec I am buried at work and just in general not on here enough lately bec I don't have time to dick around online. So you sure as hell would not be left on your own had I seen it sooner and had time to reply.

Anyway... the first I had even HEARD of this was yesterday on the radio news driving back from the airport and I seriously gasped and I heard it. I mean, I think he's probably one of the dimmest wits on earth, but I was just blown away. The fact that anyone is supporting him in the first place still blows my damn mind, but after that? Well, I won't say what I think of the people who do. But it's not good.

First, thanks for the support.

Second, can you believe that Paul Ryan said this and still backs Trump? What does that tell us about Paul Ryan?

"WASHINGTON — Speaker Paul D. Ryan on Tuesday called Donald J. Trump’s criticism of a federal judge of Hispanic heritage 'the textbook definition of a racist comment' and said he 'regrets' the remark. But Mr. Ryan also reiterated his support for Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

'I disavow these comments — I regret those comments that he made,' Mr. Ryan said after announcing a new Republican anti-poverty initiative in Anacostia, an overwhelmingly black neighborhood in Washington.

'Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment,' Mr. Ryan continued. 'I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It’s absolutely unacceptable. But do I believe that Hillary Clinton is the answer? No, I do not.'"

AGBF

 

[monarch64]

Hi Monnie,

Yes, I did read it and it seems to me the father has the attitude you are talking about. I agree that rape and sexual assault is still a problem. Its pretty awful that the college campus is unsafe.

But, this is why I said this is "the perfect storm." Everybody's beef is addressed. I'm not blaming HC at all. Just saying why I think she won't have a constituency of white men. They wouldn't vote for any woman, I think. Resentments grow.


Annette

I think everyone's resentments are growing, though. And I understand what you're saying, but she's sort of between a rock and a hard place no matter what. If she did talk less about women's and minority issues, she would be accused of ignoring them and pandering to the right. I agree that this election is the perfect storm; I don't remember things feeling so chaotic and unstable back in '08 when a very significant change was upon us.

 

[Calliecake]

Hi,

Monnie,

My post was not edited. You are in the wrong thread. My post really is saying, enough men bashing in general. What is going on is retaliation against decades of punching the daylights out of men in general. JMO. Men live in this world too. I have seen a lot of change since the olden days, and men are indiscriminately bashed. That's what I meant. Less mouth would do.

Annette

Whoops! I read your posts in both threads back to back and got confused. Sorry about that. But since I'm here, men may be indiscriminately bashed at times, sure. There is also still an overriding attitude towards women and minorities by many that they are inferior to men. I see it all the time, and the attitude comes from men AND women. Have you heard the recent news about Brock Allen Turner, Stanford Rapist, who only received 6 months instead of 6 years for his conviction? The judge gave him a very lenient sentence based on his athleticism and young age. White male athletes are more important than white female grad students, or hadn't you heard?

I'm sorry for this threadjack Deb.

Monnie, I just read about the Stanford rapist. His father wrote a letter stating that 6 months was too long of a prison sentence for
"20 minutes of action". There is currently a petition to remove the judge from being a judge that already has over 400,000 signatures. He probably would have received a longer sentence for stealing a car stereo. What kind of a message are we sending to young girls. Basically that they are not valued. I am sickened by this.

 

[Calliecake]

Illinois Republican Senator Mark Kirk came forward today saying he can not and will not support Donald Trump.

Why aren't more Republicans doing the same? How can they possibly think people will view them as having any integrity when they are supporting this racist. It seems as almost everyday Trump makes another remark showing us who he is and yet they all still support him. It scares me to think of what will happen to this country if Trump wins the election.

 

[caf]

I contributed!!!

 

[AGBF]

Trump is saying his remarks were "misconstrued". Some of his best friends are Hispanic. (I kid you not. He said almost those very words.) But he maintains that he is right that Judge Curiel is biased. He won't apologize for calling for his removal.

“'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.'

'The American justice system relies on fair and impartial judges,' he added . 'All judges should be held to that standard.'

After suggesting that a Mexican-American judge was biased, Donald J. Trump said Tuesday that the judge’s heritage did not make him 'incapable of being impartial.' (Wow. Thank you, Mr. Trump!)

Mr. Trump, who did not apologize for the remarks, continued to express doubts about Judge Curiel, noting that he was appointed to the federal bench by President Obama.

'Due to what I believe are unfair and mistaken rulings in this case and the judge’s reported associations with certain professional organizations, questions were raised regarding the Obama-appointed judge’s impartiality,' Mr. Trump said. 'It is a fair question. I hope it is not the case.'

Heeding calls from Republican leaders to focus on issues that matter to Americans, Mr. Trump said he remained focused on bringing jobs back to the country. He also insisted that he would win the Trump University case.

'While this lawsuit should have been dismissed, it is now scheduled for trial in November,' Mr. Trump said. 'I do not intend to comment on this matter any further.'

In an interview with The New York Times last week, Mr. Trump said it was clear that he considered Judge Curiel’s heritage an issue: 'I’m building the wall, I’m building the wall. I have a Mexican judge. He’s of Mexican heritage. He should have recused himself, not only for that, for other things.'

Some of Mr. Trump’s critics said that his statement did not go far enough. Jeb Bush, a former rival for the Republican nomination whose wife is from Mexico, has been largely silent since exiting the race but on Tuesday said that Mr. Trump should fully retract what he said.

'Donald Trump should retract his comments, not defend them,' Mr. Bush wrote in a post on Twitter. 'There is no place for racism in the GOP, or this country.'”

 

[ame]

Re: Textbook Definition of Racist

Ok, I don't get on here a lot lately bec I am buried at work and just in general not on here enough lately bec I don't have time to dick around online. So you sure as hell would not be left on your own had I seen it sooner and had time to reply.

Anyway... the first I had even HEARD of this was yesterday on the radio news driving back from the airport and I seriously gasped and I heard it. I mean, I think he's probably one of the dimmest wits on earth, but I was just blown away. The fact that anyone is supporting him in the first place still blows my damn mind, but after that? Well, I won't say what I think of the people who do. But it's not good.

First, thanks for the support.

Second, can you believe that Paul Ryan said this and still backs Trump? What does that tell us about Paul Ryan?

"WASHINGTON — Speaker Paul D. Ryan on Tuesday called Donald J. Trump’s criticism of a federal judge of Hispanic heritage 'the textbook definition of a racist comment' and said he 'regrets' the remark. But Mr. Ryan also reiterated his support for Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

'I disavow these comments — I regret those comments that he made,' Mr. Ryan said after announcing a new Republican anti-poverty initiative in Anacostia, an overwhelmingly black neighborhood in Washington.

'Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment,' Mr. Ryan continued. 'I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It’s absolutely unacceptable. But do I believe that Hillary Clinton is the answer? No, I do not.'"

AGBF

Oh, you definitely have it, in this instance most definitely.

I am not at all a supporter of Paul Ryan. There are times I think he can be reasonable, and shows some sense, but then there are times like this where he shows me that I thought wrong.

Illinois Republican Senator Mark Kirk came forward today saying he can not and will not support Donald Trump.

Why aren't more Republicans doing the same? How can they possibly think people will view them as having any integrity when they are supporting this racist. It seems as almost everyday Trump makes another remark showing us who he is and yet they all still support him. It scares me to think of what will happen to this country if Trump wins the election.

Ok...don't get too excited about Mr. Kirk showing some "integrity" on this. He's no prize. Just one example is his series of attack ads against his competitor Tammy Duckworth--a disabled Vet who has prosthetic legs, saying things like "she doesn't have a leg to stand on regarding veteran affairs." So on, so forth, the like. He's a real piece of work, to be clear. But I will give him credit that he's been making a few pretty nice strides in regards to being the only person willing to even meet with the Supreme Court nominee, and then being outspoken against Trump.

 

[Gypsy]

Deb, count me in for supporting you.

I avoided this thread for one simple reason: I had NOTHING to say that would meet PS's polices about posting. It would haven been one endless scream of rage and profanity.

I cannot believe this is a viable presidential candidate. And I am not surprised at all by his comments. I would expect nothing less from him. I am actually surprised that ANYONE is surprised.

He is Napoleon. And he will be the country's Waterloo.