According to Segal and other social-justice advocates who keep tabs on racist groups and hate speech, the jingoism of Trump's presidential campaign has fueled this sort of harassment. Trump's xenophobic and Islamophobic rhetoric and policy proposals have resonated with the rebellious, belligerent, flag-waving alt-right.
No it is the real question because everyone (the royal we) is acting like the ones they like and don't like are the perfect or the worst possible choice in the broadest terms as used in discussions.
No, not you because you state Hillary is acceptable, although not the best we could do ... Is Trump a good Presidential choice? No. There are also a lot of people who feel the opposite of you and are just as calm about it as you are.
They are no more crazy than you are either.
. edit: That said, with the election of Obama, we certainly lowered the bar for how much and what kind of actual experience is needed to be POTUS. Trying to raise standards for Obama's successor doesn't say much good for Obama and kind of leaves him with an * by his record.
I don't see Trump's substantive qualifications. I'm not anti-GOP, either. Would've voted without hesitation for Huntsman over Obama. He's qualified. It's just that - without being comparative to Hillary or Cruz - Trump's not fit to be President for the same reason Jesse Jackson or Ralph Nader aren't.
If Trump was really the right man for the job, he'd have some accolades instead of promises. Lastly, Obama's bar - regardless of how low you'd consider it - wasn't lying on the ground at zero. He'd done a few things.
I think that's a distracting question, trying to get folks to settle. The real questions involve competency, which includes a knowledge of how the government gets things done, as well as an ability to work within those boundaries. As we saw with Obama, if Congress isn't wanting to do what you think needs doing, you're going to have a hard time of it.
So back to the primary issue:Hillary is acceptable, although not the best we could do. If there is someone better, can they fight their way through the process? Is Trump a good Presidential choice? No.
No it is the real question because everyone (the royal we) is acting like the ones they like and don't like are the perfect or the worst possible choice in the broadest terms as used in discussions.
No, not you because you state Hillary is acceptable, although not the best we could do ... Is Trump a good Presidential choice? No. There are also a lot of people who feel the opposite of you and are just as calm about it as you are.
They are no more crazy than you are either.
. edit: That said, with the election of Obama, we certainly lowered the bar for how much and what kind of actual experience is needed to be POTUS. Trying to raise standards for Obama's successor doesn't say much good for Obama and kind of leaves him with an * by his record.
So who is out there that can make all of us happy all of the time ?
I think that's a distracting question, trying to get folks to settle. The real questions involve competency, which includes a knowledge of how the government gets things done, as well as an ability to work within those boundaries. As we saw with Obama, if Congress isn't wanting to do what you think needs doing, you're going to have a hard time of it.
Do we really want to elect someone who is fighting Congress again? Four or eight more years of obstructionism?
So back to the primary issue:Hillary is acceptable, although not the best we could do. If there is someone better, can they fight their way through the process? Is Trump a good Presidential choice? No.
I think the "bully" part is what's making him so attractive to the folks that support him. They seem to think that a man who "tells it like it is" and who rejects "political correctness" (which is somehow different than manners and politeness) is the kind of guy who can lead the country out of its failure. I think "failure" is a placeholder for "multi-ethnicity."
So, hiring a bully white man who says that those foreigners are the problem - that's the selling point. Of course, when the foreigners leave, who has to get off their ass and build the better nation?
When contrasted with Ms Clinton, there is a clear choice between the two. And so with Sanders. Right now those are the electable choices. Shortly it narrows down to 2.
All of us are faced with the same choices. Pick one of the two electable choices or vote for a 3rd party and try to get the House to pick our next POTUS, which if it goes to the House can be anybody, including someone we do not even know at present.
Is what it is. We all have to deal with it and live with the result. All of us.
So who is out there that can make all of us happy all of the time ?
I think the "bully" part is what's making him so attractive to the folks that support him. They seem to think that a man who "tells it like it is" and who rejects "political correctness" (which is somehow different than manners and politeness) is the kind of guy who can lead the country out of its failure. I think "failure" is a placeholder for "multi-ethnicity."
So, hiring a bully white man who says that those foreigners are the problem - that's the selling point. Of course, when the foreigners leave, who has to get off their ass and build the better nation?
I do not endorse Trump. What I do endorse is thinking and clear analysis. The day Trump announced his candidacy on June 16th, 2015, was the day the media began exposing its aversion to clear analysis and thinking. Let’s examine Trump’s seemingly controversial statement, that he still to this day, nearly a year later, is labeled a “racist” for.
Each statement that requires the reader to dig further and inform themselves on will be provided with a link for you to click on in this article. Please take the time to read through each one, to get a sense of what Trump meant when he made this statement. Anything in is something I added, to add commentary or make room for additional links. All of the links are from mainstream, leftist media groups, except one long, in-depth piece by Breitbart going into gruesome details that other publications refuse to.
Then, please share this article with anyone you know who calls Trump a “racist” and believes he is divisive, a joke, an idiot, etc. This isn’t meant to convince anyone to vote for someone, it’s meant to bring the discourse back to clear, calm, rational discussion about major issues.
“When Mexico (meaning the Mexican Government) sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you (pointing to the audience). They’re not sending you (pointing again). They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us.
But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting.
And it only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast.”
What are your thoughts on his speech now? Leave a comment below, and don’t forget to share this with someone who could be steered back on the path of discussing these issues without calling people “racists” for wanting to talk about them.
if its all that, then break out the RICO charges. They should be easy to prove.
In a separate civil lawsuit, Art Cohen v. Donald J. Trump, filed in mid-February 2014 in federal district court in California, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel allowed claimants in California, Florida, and New York to proceed as a class action and rejected Trump's request to dismiss their racketeering claim. As of May 2016, trial was scheduled to begin on November 28, 2016. On May 27, 2016, Curiel granted a request by The Washington Post for public release of certain internal Trump University documents. The released information included "playbooks" documenting instructions for employees to use a hard-sell approach, as well as testimony from some former employees that Trump University had defrauded or lied to its students.
Despite Trump's claim to have won much of the lawsuit, all three lawsuits are still pending.
The topic was highlighted during the Republican primaries and at the March 3, 2016 Republican Party presidential nomination debate in Detroit, Michigan.
Trump has repeatedly attacked Curiel* in campaign speeches, calling the judge a "hater" and describing him as "Spanish" or "Mexican". Trump has said that Curiel should recuse himself from the case. Curiel says Trump has “placed the integrity of these court proceedings at issue.”
*Curiel was born in the United States to Mexican parents.
In 2005, the New York State Department of Education sent Trump, Sexton, and Trump University a letter saying that they were violating state law by using the word "university" when in fact Trump University was not actually chartered as one and by offering live instruction or training without a required license.
A letter sent by the Deputy Commissioner for Higher Education, Joseph Frey, to Trump that was made public in April 2010 stated: "Use of the word 'university' by your corporation is misleading and violates New York Education Law and the Rules of the Board of Regents." In June 2010, "Trump University" changed its name to "The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative."
Schneiderman described Trump University as a bait-and-switch scheme and pointed to the fact that the organization was not a university. Schneiderman accused Trump of misleading more than 5,000 people to pay up to $35,000 to learn his real estate investment techniques.
In an infomercial, Trump claimed to have "handpicked" Trump University's instructors. He testified in a 2012 deposition, however, that he never selected the instructors for the program. Michael Sexton stated in a 2012 deposition that Trump signed off on the school's advertisements.
In October 2014, a New York judge found Trump personally liable for operating the company without the required business license.
There are two federal class-action lawsuits pending: one against Trump University and one against Donald Trump personally. Makaeff, et al. vs. Trump University, LLC, et al. was filed in California, Florida, and New York. Trump University also filed a $1 million defamation suit against former Trump University student Tarla Makaeff, who had spent about $37,000 on seminars, after she joined the class-action lawsuit and publicized her classroom experiences on social media. Unable to prove malice, Trump University lost an anti-SLAPP lawsuit (under statutes designed to thwart legal intimidation of class-action participants) and was ordered by a federal judge in April 2015 to pay Makaeff and her lawyers $798,774.24 in legal fees and costs. In 2013 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judgment, noting that "victims of con artists often sing the praises of their victimizers until the moment they realize they have been fleeced." Also, Trump University employees pressured students to offer favorable reviews, instructed them to fill out the forms in order to obtain graduation certificates, and did not undertake procedures often used to ensure that surveys were filled out objectively.
In 2005, the New York State Department of Education sent Trump, Sexton, and Trump University a letter saying that they were violating state law by using the word "university" when in fact Trump University was not actually chartered as one and by offering live instruction or training without a required license.
A letter sent by the Deputy Commissioner for Higher Education, Joseph Frey, to Trump that was made public in April 2010 stated: "Use of the word 'university' by your corporation is misleading and violates New York Education Law and the Rules of the Board of Regents." In June 2010, "Trump University" changed its name to "The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative."
Schneiderman described Trump University as a bait-and-switch scheme and pointed to the fact that the organization was not a university. Schneiderman accused Trump of misleading more than 5,000 people to pay up to $35,000 to learn his real estate investment techniques.
In an infomercial, Trump claimed to have "handpicked" Trump University's instructors. He testified in a 2012 deposition, however, that he never selected the instructors for the program. Michael Sexton stated in a 2012 deposition that Trump signed off on the school's advertisements.
In October 2014, a New York judge found Trump personally liable for operating the company without the required business license.
There are two federal class-action lawsuits pending: one against Trump University and one against Donald Trump personally.Makaeff, et al. vs. Trump University, LLC, et al. was filed in California, Florida, and New York. Trump University also filed a $1 million defamation suit against former Trump University student Tarla Makaeff, who had spent about $37,000 on seminars, after she joined the class-action lawsuit and publicized her classroom experiences on social media. Unable to prove malice, Trump University lost an anti-SLAPP lawsuit (under statutes designed to thwart legal intimidation of class-action participants) and was ordered by a federal judge in April 2015 to pay Makaeff and her lawyers $798,774.24 in legal fees and costs. In 2013 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judgment, noting that "victims of con artists often sing the praises of their victimizers until the moment they realize they have been fleeced." Also, Trump University employees pressured students to offer favorable reviews, instructed them to fill out the forms in order to obtain graduation certificates, and did not undertake procedures often used to ensure that surveys were filled out objectively.
In 2005, the New York State Department of Education sent Trump, Sexton, and Trump University a letter saying that they were violating state law by using the word "university" when in fact Trump University was not actually chartered as one and by offering live instruction or training without a required license.
A letter sent by the Deputy Commissioner for Higher Education, Joseph Frey, to Trump that was made public in April 2010 stated: "Use of the word 'university' by your corporation is misleading and violates New York Education Law and the Rules of the Board of Regents." In June 2010, "Trump University" changed its name to "The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative."
Schneiderman described Trump University as a bait-and-switch scheme and pointed to the fact that the organization was not a university. Schneiderman accused Trump of misleading more than 5,000 people to pay up to $35,000 to learn his real estate investment techniques.
In an infomercial, Trump claimed to have "handpicked" Trump University's instructors. He testified in a 2012 deposition, however, that he never selected the instructors for the program. Michael Sexton stated in a 2012 deposition that Trump signed off on the school's advertisements.
In October 2014, a New York judge found Trump personally liable for operating the company without the required business license.
There are two federal class-action lawsuits pending: one against Trump University and one against Donald Trump personally. Makaeff, et al. vs. Trump University, LLC, et al. was filed in California, Florida, and New York. Trump University also filed a $1 million defamation suit against former Trump University student Tarla Makaeff, who had spent about $37,000 on seminars, after she joined the class-action lawsuit and publicized her classroom experiences on social media. Unable to prove malice, Trump University lost an anti-SLAPP lawsuit (under statutes designed to thwart legal intimidation of class-action participants) and was ordered by a federal judge in April 2015 to pay Makaeff and her lawyers $798,774.24 in legal fees and costs. In 2013 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judgment, noting that "victims of con artists often sing the praises of their victimizers until the moment they realize they have been fleeced." Also, Trump University employees pressured students to offer favorable reviews, instructed them to fill out the forms in order to obtain graduation certificates, and did not undertake procedures often used to ensure that surveys were filled out objectively.
The recent press attacks upon Trump University have not been an accurate representation of the professionally run school that provided a quality real estate education. While the press has taken selected portions of documents and testimony and spun them in order to further their agenda of attacking Mr. Trump’s business record, the true story is best told by the students who attended Trump University and used the information they learned to become successful real estate investors and entrepreneurs. The students on this video are representative of the many students who were overwhelmingly satisfied with Trump University. Rather than listen to the media spin, listen to the hard-working students who can attest first-hand to the truth about Trump University.
Trump is a liar. Hmmm. Sounds very presidential to me
Really? You see dishonesty as a qualification for office?
David Frum has a great piece in The Atlantic about this phenomenon (among others). It's about what has historically been expected of a president.
It's long. You probably won't read it. Most of the Trump supporters I know see him being (by normal measures) utterly unqualified for the office as a positive—they see him as a means to disrupt the current system, which they regard as hopeless.
That system is built on the rule of law. which Trump has expressed nothing but contempt for. The rule of law is what stands between us and the rule of pure power: mob rule, and everything that goes with it.
If you've signed on to the personality cult that is the Trump campaign, if you're a true believer, then apparently there is nothing about the man you're not prepared to see as positive. And I can't think of a more frightening development in this election.
I was being facetious, yet lamenting at the same time. Two things that I have consistently argued against over the many years is that two wrongs do not make a right. That and more importantly I have jumped up and down until there is nothing left to kick on the dead horse about how we as a country have changed from the ends never justifying the means to hearing Bill Clinton and others defending some tactics by saying that the ends do justify the means. And that is where this country is firmly rooted today.
I read the Atlantic piece and the WSJ editorial that inspired the former. I wholly agree that the turning point was Chicago in 1968. I was watching, watching very hard as I got closer to registering for the draft in October 1970. And I have little to argue against the rationale of the editorial.
The Atlantic piece. I'm not ready to really respond to it one guardrail at a time but I'll mention two things that I have a problem with the article on. First, it misrepresented Trump's 'relationships' with authoritarian rulers. What he has stated over and over again, unchanging is that while there may be a lot of bad guys out there, like Quadaffy, Hussein and Assad, as long as they do not threaten us, then its not our place to take them out and replace them. These guys regretfully are usually still better and present stability to places that will end when they are gone. The first time that became obvious was when Marshall Tito died and Yugoslavia was broken up. Funny whose side we took on that one, the Muslim's, eh ? Anyway, Trump's position on this is consistent and nearly identical to Ron and Rand Paul's. And I agree strongly with it and his thoughts on NATO for that matter.
The second thing. Entirely left out is the illegal immigrant issue. It is blatantly ignored and risks the credibility of the entire article. Its the foundation of Trump's run. But I can see why. Political correctness has all but eliminated the concept of illegal and immigrants in the same sentence. Its been blurred to be about all immigration and when the thought is no longer spoken or printed due to institutionalized policies, it becomes forgotten for what it really is and those who find it the same issue its been for decades finally being addressed, well it takes on a new energy. Those who are open border people have no concept of how deep this runs. The rule of law as brought up by the article, right ? Well what about the breakdown of the rule of law and Sanctuary Cities ? That is another turning point ignored as to a large part of how we got to where we are today.
I reserve the right to get to the guardrails themselves. But this is enough for now other than to state that I am not oblivious to the arguments against Trump and haven't drunk the Kool-Aid, but at this point with all the things mentioned in the article, I really do believe that we really have little left to lose. We are already at the bottom of too many slippery slopes for some things to matter anymore.
There is a certain delusional appeal to the idea that "desperate times call for desperate measures." Especially when combined with a promise to make things "right" again. It's all been done before. The obvious elephant in the room is that things could take a rather nasty turn for the worse, only adding further to the desperation (which of course is also casually dismissed by saying that things cannot possibly get any worse).
In "desperate times" cooler heads must prevail, not blustery con artists like Don the Con.
"Things have all gone to hell. So it makes sense to get an inexperienced blustering con man to right things."
