TRUMP - Just because.....................Naw, I just can't say it!
POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 20:06
VIEWED: 244478
PAGE 12 of 170
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Sen. Mark Kirk, R. Illinois, Un-Endorses Trump for President
Mark Kirk @MarkKirk tweets:
Given my military experience, Donald Trump does not have the temperament to command our military or our nuclear arsenal.
https://twitter.com/MarkKirk/status/740266906922438656
This might be the first time ever that a senator has un-endorsed a presidential candidate of his party. There have been plenty who never endorsed in the first place, but I'm not sure if anyone has ever endorsed and then taken it back.
If never before, it is about time this happened. No more despicable candidate has the GOP had, none more deserving of an endorsement retraction.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Paul Ryan does not agree with either you or Sen. Mark Kirk. Trump is still Paul Ryan's Man.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
If never before, it is about time this happened. No more despicable candidate has the GOP had, none more deserving of an endorsement retraction.
In a remarkable 45 seconds captured today by CNN, House Speaker Paul Ryan, who is currently the highest-ranking elected official in the Republican party, first called Trump’s comments racist and then immediately urged Americans to vote for him anyway.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
While I have no doubt about the sheer meanness of republicans . . .
It's easy to extend the generous hand when you feel your own life is secure. But when it starts to become a zero-sum system, their gain is your loss; and suddenly, people become far less charitable. . . .
Well fuck [Hillary] and the disease-riddled donkey she's whipping to the finish line so she can pocket her gold.- KIKI
I want to make this simple. Here's what Donald Trump did recently:
He pledged $1 million to help veterans.
He tried to weasel out of it for months by saying he already paid and hoped no one would notice he had not.
When he finally got caught, he insulted the reporter who caught him.
Even among sleazebags, this is not normal behavior. This is pathological sleaziness. It's literally beyond belief. Do not let Trump distract you with his latest barrage of insults. Do not turn your attention to Hillary. Do not let this be normalized away as "just another Trump thing."
Maybe we need to put this in simpler terms.
$1 million is one ten-thousandth of Trump's claimed wealth. The average American household has a net worth of about $50,000. One ten-thousandth of that is $5. In terms of its effect on his personal finances, what Trump did was the equivalent of promising five bucks to a homeless vet and then trying to weasel out of it. What kind of person would do that?
This deserves far more attention than it's gotten. If character is supposed to be important in our presidents, this is evidence of the most contemptible kind of character imaginable. He tried to cheat a bunch of veterans! Can we please not shrug our shoulders and let this fade away into talk of Hillary?
www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/25/how-social-media-hel
ped-crack-the-case-of-donald-trumps-1-million-donation-to-veterans/
www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/caught-fibbing-trump-scrambles-addres
s-veterans-controversy#64470
www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-vets-donations_us_57448908e4
b0613b512b6131
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-veterans-group-donations-timel
ine
Need I mention that multi-billionaires can go insane? Houston's very own billionaire Howard Hughes for example. Trump is already going there. Eight years from now, President Trump could be hoarding bottles of his own urine like Hughes did. Or in Trump's case, his own hair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes#Later_years_as_a_Las_Vegas
_recluse= SECOND
Shall I discuss what Hillary has done recently?
The Clinton Foundation, and how - during her tenure as Scy of State - the Foundation accepted tens of millions of dollars from donors who then asked for special favors from Hillary
Quote:http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-
Judicial Watch today released 276 pages of internal State Department documents revealing that within two days of the deadly terrorist attack on Benghazi, Mohamed Yusuf al-Magariaf, the president of Libya’s National Congress, asked to participate in a Clinton Global Initiative function and “meet President Clinton.” The meeting between the Libyan president and Bill Clinton had not previously been disclosed. The documents also show Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s staff coordinated with the Clinton Foundation’s staff to have her thank Clinton Global Initiative project sponsors for their “commitments” during a Foundation speech on September 25, 2009.
new-clinton-documents-raise-questions-on-benghazi-clinton-foundation/
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hil
lary-clintons-state-department-1934187
Quote:And Hillary was just a poor, helpless First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State, and her endless, strident advocacy for war within her family, in Congress, and in the Obama administration, had no effect whatsoever.
Hillary and Trump have started the same number of wars.
And her endless advoc
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Trump’s lawyers haven’t filed any motion asking for the case to be reassigned to a different judge. If the judge was bias in Trump’s lawyers’ opinion (Trump’s opinion is worthless) than Trump’s lawyers would file. When the client is a fool, his lawyers ignore the client. If the client insists, the lawyers will either resign or file the motion. That is the way it works.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And since this is a thread about Trump, I'm going to repeat my observation and my question about Judge Curiel:
Is releasing documents BEFORE trial standard operating procedure, either within the judiciary as a whole, or for this particular judge? It may be LEGAL, but is it usual? Because if not, then this judge is demonstrating a bias, and we are free to speculate on where that bias comes from.
Until Trump’s lawyers make their move, I have another lawyer that looked into Trump’s accusation that the Judge is biased against Trump. The conclusion is that Trump is full of shit:
www.litigationandtrial.com/2016/06/articles/attorney/consumer-protecti
on/curiel-trump/#.V1bo0DYd2po.twitter
The Makaeff case was filed on April 30, 2010, and transferred to Judge Curiel on January 30, 2013....On the issues where Judge Curiel had discretion, he generally ruled against the plaintiffs....On the issues where Judge Curiel had to rule on disputed legal concepts, he generally ruled against the plaintiffs....There’s only really one issue where Judge Curiel truly sided with the plaintiffs, and that was over the appropriate proof of damages.
....Summing Up: Judge Curiel is doing his job like a normal judge, issuing rulings consistent with the case law. But you already knew that.
For the record, note that the "plaintiffs" in this case are the folks suing Trump. So when Curiel rules against the plaintiffs, he's ruling for Trump. There's a whole lot of detail to back up Kennerly's summary, and you should read it if you're interested in this stuff.
Trump's major whine is that the whole case should have been tossed out on summary judgment long ago. Kennerly points us to Ken White for an explanation of all that. Roughly speaking, White confirms that Trump is full of shit. You don't get summary judgment unless your opponents literally have no credible evidence on their side. If they have even a small amount, then you let a jury decide. Obviously Trump's victims do have some evidence, so summary judgment was never really a possibility.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote G
Just wanted to repeat this burning runaway logic train for the fun of it.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
1. I know somebody who knew somebody who lived in Weimar Germany as a boy and young man. [a long time ago in a continent far away]
2. (He is dead now, passed away a decade ago.) Some people, including this person and his family, were starving. They literally boiled shoes and ate them to appease their hunger.
3. What do liberals offer to that? [ 0_o What do Germans offer that? ]
4. Nothing. They vote for Hillary, [how does that even relate as a logical course of action in response to someone eating their shoes?) who was one of the supporters of gutting welfare as we know it. [cites]
________________________________________
Quote G
Curious: what would you expect Liberals to offer people who ate their shoes who lived in another country and are dead now...?
What Does Donald Trump offer them btw?
G what SIG is about as I am sure you know, is posting in the most negative way about the west. In her reply to your query about what Trump offered she quotes herself as though she is quoting someone else, "What do liberals offer to that"? and attacks Clinton by suggesting liberals somehow create the problems that bring a society to rebellion; why.
“The next U.S. administration looks at the Middle East in more traditional terms, that is, like the current administration treats Ukraine, the Caucasus, the Black Sea, and the Baltics. Russians could be surprised by the significant pushback against their agenda.”
http://breakingenergy.com/2016/06/08/russian-views-on-the-middle-east-
a-trip-report/
I think they know Clinton is much more the hawk than Obama and fear the push back they know is coming. This suggests Russia is going to have many more confrontations with the United States. Something they can ill afford.
So, what is the playbook SIG and 1kiki use when posting here? It comes from the concept of a show on Russian TV suggesting the fall of the United States to pump up nationalism; which in turn means support for Putin. The show is called Good by America. SIG and 1KIKI are determined to destroy anything West and use the hate, lies and differing views of the American population, mixed with Russian propaganda to promote this agenda.
This being the case, all the negativity they post cannot have the distinction of being labeled fair, balanced and free of bias.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks for the relevant and interesting information, SECOND. So just OOC, why do you think Judge Curiel released trial documents before the final verdict?
I'd have to look this up, and I'm not sure the info is available, but is it possible that he made his (usual, typical) rulings before Trump decided to run for President, but AFTER Trump started campaigning and saying all of those horrible things about Mexicans the judge decided to have a political impact?
-----
OK that information is in the article that you linked. All of Judge Curie's rulings, except one, were made BEFORE Trump started saying that Mexicans are criminals. The earliest I can trace back Trump's public comments to that effect was June 2 2015, the last ruling by Curiel was Sep 18 2015. So it's possible that Curiel had a change of heart - when he went from being a regular judge to being a political actor - some time after Sep 2015, and the release of documents was politically-motivated.
Because so far, 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.
Let me reframe this:
If there was a Republican judge overseeing a case against Hillary's use of a private email server, and he were to release all of the relevant documents BEFORE the final verdict and BEFORE the November elections ... what would YOU think?
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If there was a Republican judge overseeing a case against Hillary's use of a private email server, and he were to release all of the relevant documents BEFORE the final verdict and BEFORE the November elections ... what would YOU think?
No answer?
Do you want to know how I evaluate what people (you included) say about Trump? Probably not, but I'm going to tell you anyway.
Compare EVERYTHING that is said about Trump - what he would do, what he's like, etc - to the current establishment
Trump's hair = Hillary's cankles
Trump's ridiculing the disabled = Hillary's "We came, we saw, he died" moment. In fact, I think Hillary comes out the worse in that comparison
Trump's (presumed) conversion of the USA into some dystopian gulag = the REAL warmongering, jihadist-supporting, torturing, destabilizing, progressively impoverished, and eternally-surveiled dystopia that we currently live in
See? All you have to do is substitute "Hillary" for "Trump", or vice versa, or find the logically-equivalent comparison and proportion suddenly emerges.
You shouldn't be afraid of "the future" because it's already here. You just didn't notice the conversion.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
If there was a Republican judge overseeing a case against Hillary's use of a private email server, and he were to release all of the relevant documents BEFORE the final verdict and BEFORE the November elections ... what would YOU think?
No answer?
Shall we assume you are looking for a reply from Second?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote G
Just wanted to repeat this burning runaway logic train for the fun of it.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
1. I know somebody who knew somebody who lived in Weimar Germany as a boy and young man. [a long time ago in a continent far away]
2. (He is dead now, passed away a decade ago.) Some people, including this person and his family, were starving. They literally boiled shoes and ate them to appease their hunger.
3. What do liberals offer to that? [ 0_o What do Germans offer that? ]
4. Nothing. They vote for Hillary, [how does that even relate as a logical course of action in response to someone eating their shoes?) who was one of the supporters of gutting welfare as we know it. [cites]
________________________________________
Quote G
Curious: what would you expect Liberals to offer people who ate their shoes who lived in another country and are dead now...?
What Does Donald Trump offer them btw?
G what SIG is about as I am sure you know, is posting in the most negative way about the west. In her reply to your query about what Trump offered she quotes herself as though she is quoting someone else, "What do liberals offer to that"? and attacks Clinton by suggesting liberals somehow create the problems that bring a society to rebellion; why.
“The next U.S. administration looks at the Middle East in more traditional terms, that is, like the current administration treats Ukraine, the Caucasus, the Black Sea, and the Baltics. Russians could be surprised by the significant pushback against their agenda.”
http://breakingenergy.com/2016/06/08/russian-views-on-the-middle-east-
a-trip-report/
I think they know Clinton is much more the hawk than Obama and fear the push back they know is coming. This suggests Russia is going to have many more confrontations with the United States. Something they can ill afford.
So, what is the playbook SIG and 1kiki use when posting here? It comes from the concept of a show on Russian TV suggesting the fall of the United States to pump up nationalism; which in turn means support for Putin. The show is called Good by America. SIG and 1KIKI are determined to destroy anything West and use the hate, lies and differing views of the American population, mixed with Russian propaganda to promote this agenda.
This being the case, all the negativity they post cannot have the distinction of being labeled fair, balanced and free of bias.
Unquote
Another example of confusing posting errors by THUGGERY, which he denies in other threads.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First of all it's END QUOTE not UNQUOTE. To unquote is to remove the quotes. Secondly, if you cannot understand my posts I don't care. And third, it is time for me to go back to not responding to you because as you say, my posts are confusing to you. Therefore you are responding many times to posts you admit to not understanding. GOODBYE
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME