TRUMP - Just because.....................Naw, I just can't say it!
POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 20:06
VIEWED: 244478
PAGE 16 of 170
kiki - That would be far more apropos if he actually said any of that. Did he?
second - Yes, Trump did.
kiki - Really?
not here
https://www.google.com/#q=%22no+you+can%27t+see+my+tax+returns+haters%
22
here
https://www.google.com/#q=%22i+respect+women+especially+the+hot+ones+i
+can+dress+up+in+bikinis%22
or here
https://www.google.com/#q=%22people+who+complain+when+i+retweet+nazis+
are+such+losers%22
Care to double down on your bullshit?
So I see you DID double down on your bullshit! But in fact, he didn't actually SAY any of those things that you want to lampoon him for. Just like I never said I love Trump - or even support him - or even will vote for him.
But hey, if the only way you can win an argument is to invent words and attribute those words to other people just to show how wrong they are - well, whatever you need to do to float your boat.
Btw, as another example of quotes being mis-attributed (to the wrong person), Sarah Palin never did say 'I can see Russia from my house'. Tina Fey did. But Palin sure got a lot of flack for it.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Charles Gibson asked Palin what insight she had gained from living so close to Russia, and she responded: "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." But Palin doesn’t speak Russian and she doesn’t live on Little Diomede island. She was pretending to know Russia. It was all make-believe foreign policy experience for Palin. She very much deserved to be mocked over her remark.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Btw, as another example of quotes being mis-attributed (to the wrong person), Sarah Palin never did say 'I can see Russia from my house'. Tina Fey did. But Palin sure got a lot of flack for it.
www.snopes.com/politics/palin/russia.asp
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/09/can_you_rea
lly_see_russia_from_alaska.html
When he talks without thinking, Trump imitates the Hulk. Is it wrong to draw a shirtless Trump with orange skin and purple pants? I think not, but a literal minded supporter would say the cartoon is untruthful, since Trump wears a shirt and the Hulk is green.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"She very much deserved to be mocked over her remark."
I agree. Just not Tina Fey's remark, which a lot of people ASSUMED Palin said - which is why it ended up on Snopes.
You see, if you have a valid criticism, you don't need to invent something - and then claim it's true because it has an air of 'truthiness' about it. All you have to do is point out the real truth.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"the case has been quietly progressing in the background and the brouhaha - and Trump's complaints- didn't surface until all related documents were made public. Which still seems like an odd move to me and one that has never been addressed."
Funny thing......the case had been progressing quietly until Trump opened his big yapper and made the case public.
http://www.pvangels.com/news-mexico/178956/trump-presses-case-against-
mexican-judge-curiel
"In public, Trump has called repeatedly for the judge to recuse himself, but his lawyers in fact have not made any such request. That is undoubtedly because court precedents are unanimous in holding that race, ethnicity, gender, religion and sexual orientation are not themselves grounds for disqualifying a judge. If they were, legal ethicists observe, the legal system would fall into chaos because no judge would be free from taint. The five Supreme Court justices who are Catholic could not rule on a case in which the Catholic church participated, but neither could the other justices who are not Catholic.
Moreover, while Trump is free to say anything he wants about the judge, the lawyers in the case are bound by the professional rules of conduct and could be sanctioned for making such charges about Curiel without actual evidence of bias."
Legal ethics expert Stephen Gillers notes in addition that litigants may not wait to seek a judge's disqualification; they must move to recuse the judge as soon as they know there is a conflict.
Trump's lawyers, from the prestigious O'Melveny & Myers firm, however, have not done that. Indeed, some observers argue that the judge did the candidate a big favor by postponing the trial in the case until after the election. And Trump did not become bellicose about Curiel until the judge, at the request of news organizations, ordered the unsealing of documents in the case— documents that have proved embarrassing for the GOP presumptive nominee.
"This is not really about rebutting accusations that Trump University defrauded its students," said NYU's Gillers. Rather, it is a kind of dog whistle to supporters, "a way to keep the subject of illegal Mexican immigration on the front page."
Judge Curiel, appointed to the federal bench by President Obama, was born in Indiana, the son of Mexican-American immigrants. He served for 17 years as a federal prosecutor in California, rising to chief of narcotics enforcement in the southern district. In 1997 he was believed to be the target of an assassination attempt from a Mexican drug cartel, was put under 24-hour watch by the U.S. Marshall Service for a year, was moved to a military base and eventually to Justice Department headquarters in Washington, D.C.
The judge's friend, former U.S. Attorney Gregory Vega, scoffs at the notion that Curiel will be in any way influenced by Trump's remarks. "What's so ironic is that Gonzalo gave so many years of his life to protecting America from drug traffickers," Vega told Yahoo News. "He had a credible threat on his life. Do you really think being called [names] by Mr. Trump is going to frighten him? How silly."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Judge Curiel has actually ruled, many times I might add, in Trump's favor and even moved the trial date back until after the election. Hmmm, now let's see his being "Mexican" surely must have had some influence on such a totally uncalled for and biased attack. The nerve of that man changing his day in court to benefit him.
How dare he?
Trump's high-octane attorneys surely fell asleep at the wheel, they should be fired for such an outrage. Timing is everything.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's more..............................
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/judge-ordered-release-hundreds-pages-154
800848.html
"When explaining the disclosure, Curiel pointed to a previous case that states courts must consider if a public official benefits from confidentiality and if the documents involve issues of public interest. He also noted that Politico published one of the "playbooks" from 2010 in its entirety in March."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judge-orders-release-of-intern
al-trump-university-documents/2016/05/28/2e960e5e-24f9-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html?postshare=6741464469564364
"In his order, Curiel noted that Trump had emerged as a leading presidential candidate over the course of the civil case against Trump University and that Trump had “placed the integrity of these court proceedings at issue.” The judge pointed to a previous case to say that courts deciding on public disclosure must weigh “whether a party benefitting from the order of confidentiality is a public entity or official; and .?.?. whether the case involves issues important to the public.”
Granted, the Yahoo article isn't quite as good, journalistically speaking, as the
Washington post article (certain dates not properly notated), but you get the gist
of the news behind Trump's accusations of bias and shameful behavior. Curiel used
the law, (OMFG, what a nightmare!) and not mere speculation and innuendo. Besides,
the point of his argument was rendered moot when Politico had published a portion
of the so-called "Playbook" prior to the judge's decision.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:"All you have to do is point out the real truth." If you believe that, then you have misunderstood all of recorded history. Nuanced truth, with all its twisty and turning details, does not triumph over big, blunt falsehoods vividly told. And Trump has banned another media outlet from his events. I predict that it will just passively surrender. Nobody from the media will sass Trump to his face and either demand he bring his proof with him or mock him as he answers questions. Instead, they will be his stenographers during Trump events.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"She very much deserved to be mocked over her remark."
I agree. Just not Tina Fey's remark, which a lot of people ASSUMED Palin said - which is why it ended up on Snopes.
You see, if you have a valid criticism, you don't need to invent something - and then claim it's true because it has an air of 'truthiness' about it. All you have to do is point out the real truth.
Quote:www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trailguide-donald-trump-says-he-s-revok
Donald Trump announced Monday that he was revoking media credentials from the Washington Post, another sign that he does not tolerate criticism that often comes with presidential campaigns.
Trump has previously banned Politico, BuzzFeed, the Daily Beast, the Des Moines Register and other publications from attending his press events and rallies. But the Post ban is new territory, given the paper's historic role in covering campaigns and setting the nation's political agenda.
ing-1465853067-htmlstory.html
America has already seen a billionaire wacko run for President: Ross Perot. At least Perot withdrew from the race, partially because the Republican party was NOT financing his run, but then Perot's ego got in the way and he returned to campaigning. Since Trump has Republican money to supplement Trump money, Trump probably won't do a Perot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_presidential_campaign,_1992#D
ecline_and_withdrawal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The only thing I got out of the anti-Trump arguments is that when you have to resort to cartoons and made-up videos, you've lost it.
Quote:And he was 100% correct about NAFTA.
America has already seen a billionaire wacko run for President: Ross Perot.
--------------
I'll tell you what I DON'T like about Trump: I think that he has never confronted either the international banking cartel, nor the CIA-State Dept multi-headed hydra, nor the military-industrial complex. The last person to confront them was JFK (BTW, ALL immigration was illegal under JFK) and look what happened to him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just wanted to add that - because KIKI and I share similar views on several topics, it doesn't mean that we share the same views on EVERY topic.
KIKI is anti-Hillary. That doesn't mean KIKI is pro-Trump. I expect that there is a good chance that KIKI will vote "down-ticket" this November.
In the meantime, I'm so anti-Hillary/ anti-establishment, I probably WILL vote for Trump.
Try not to conflate us, we're not the same on this.
--------------
I'll tell you what I DON'T like about Trump: I think that he has never confronted either the international banking cartel, nor the CIA-State Dept multi-headed hydra, nor the military-industrial complex. The last person to confront them was JFK (BTW, ALL immigration was illegal under JFK) and look what happened to him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:For my next trick, I cut-and-paste a commencement video. Your best next move is to argue that Ken Burns is opinionated, but no expert on Presidents, and therefore he could not factually know that Trump is not qualified. I just realized who is an expert on Presidents -- other Presidents and ex-Presidents! None of them endorse Trump. Two of the Republican ex-Presidents specifically condemn Trump to eternal damnation.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The only thing I got out of the anti-Trump arguments is that when you have to resort to cartoons and made-up videos, you've lost it.
www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/where-republicans-stand-o
n-donald-trump-a-cheat-sheet/481449/
Ken Burns on Trump at Stanford's commencement
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
In the meantime, I'm so anti-Hillary/ anti-establishment, I probably WILL vote for Trump.
There is no gentle way to put this. You're voting for a racist. What's that make you and your friend 1kiki? And we all know how you feel about Jews!
Saturday, January 28, 2012 6:53 AM
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Monday, January 30, 2012 19:31
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5047
PAGE 1 of 2
There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.
http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180
403506.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME