...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* I am so sick of Trump's pity parties. WHY is he so paranoid? Has he ALWAYS gotten his way, so he doesn't know what to do except feel like a victim if everything and everyone doesn't kiss his behind? WHAT a BABY!!! Spoiled brat from day one. Grow up, Mop Top, and get a real life!
* I was a trump supporter until now. He is an embarrassment i lost many many tremendous friends because i supported Trump.
* Trump is too goofy, too loony, too idiotic, too much of a con artist, too dishonest, too immature to be president of a great country like the USA. He has suckered in a lot of Americans. Most of these are uneducated white men and white women. Even they, I would think, I would hope, now realize that they have been following a moron.
* And people really want this nut as president?
* The thing is, Trump's VERY entertaining, but he's not that bright. When he started campaigning, he wanted the bragging rights of "self-funding"--so now that he's coming to the expensive part of the race, he not only doesn't have the mailing lists and other fundraising infrastructure in place, but he also doesn't have anyone on the staff who'd know what to do with them. He "doesn't believe in" internal polling, which means he'll have zero idea of how he's going over with the overwhelming majority of voters (including the overwhelming majority of Republicans) who HAVEN'T come to any of his rallies. He has no IT people on his campaign. Seriously. Basically, he just doesn't have many people who can do the parts of a presidential campaign that actually require some expertise. He thinks he doesn't need these services because he can "wing it." Uh, sure. He's going up against Hillary, who in her whole life has probably never not done her homework, and who will be the beneficiary of the Democrats' vastly superior election and get-out-the-vote organization. Trump is toast.
* Now Trump is saying his words were misconstrued and he didn't mean what he said. Hahahaha. Flip flop, flip flop. I wonder if the Trumpanzee disciples still defending him feel foolish yet.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Actions speak louder than Trump: His own lawyer said “the judge is doing his job” in Trump U. case
By Michael Isikoff, June 6, 2016
Just three weeks before Donald Trump triggered a national firestorm over his claims that U.S. Judge Gonzalo Curiel was biased against him because of his Mexican heritage, his lead lawyer in the Trump University case praised Curiel for a “sound decision” and said he had no plans to file a motion for him to be recused.
“The judge is doing his job,” said Daniel Petrocelli, shaking his head, when asked if planned to seek Curiel’s recusal. “We’re not seeking to recuse the judge.”
The comments by Petrocelli, who heads the defense team for the presumptive Republican nominee, were made to reporters outside the federal courthouse in San Diego on May 6 (and videotaped by Yahoo News) after a key pre-trial hearing on the Trump University case. They got no national media attention at the time.
But they could now undercut Trump’s repeated assertions that Curiel, who was born in Indiana, had an “absolute conflict” because he is “Mexican” and should therefore disqualify himself. Legal experts across the political spectrum and Republican Party leaders including House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have denounced Trump’s slurs on Curiel’s impartiality.
“I’ve been treated very unfairly by the judge,” Trump told CNN’s Jake Tapper last Friday. “This judge is of Mexican heritage. I’m building a wall. … I think he should recuse himself.”
Petrocelli, a renowned civil litigator who has spearheaded Trump’s defense in the Trump University case, praised Curiel after the May 6 hearing and for good reason: The judge had arguably done Trump a huge favor. The plaintiffs in the case, who claim they were defrauded out of tens of thousands of dollars they paid for Trump University seminars they say were largely worthless, had pushed for a trial date this summer in the 6-year-old case — right after the Republican Party convention. “Justice delayed is justice denied,” Jason Forge, one of the plaintiff’s lawyers, had argued to Curiel that day. “There are people who are still paying off their debts for the money they paid to Trump University.”
But Curiel rejected that argument and pushed the trial back to Nov. 28 so as not to interfere with Trump’s campaign for president. It was no small break for the presumptive GOP candidate, since he is the lead defendant in the case and would likely be the chief witness in a trial that is expected to last at least a month.
Although Petrocelli had sought a trial date in February — by which time Trump, if he wins the election, would actually be president — he praised Curiel’s ruling that day. “We’re pleased that this case is not going to trial [while] Mr. Trump is preparing for the presidential election,” he told reporters outside the courtroom. “We think that’s a sound decision by the court.”
Later, when rejecting the idea of a recusal motion against Curiel, Petrocelli added: “I think the court today did a good job of trying to balance out competing interests.”
Petrocelli declined to comment to Yahoo News Monday on his opinion of Curiel. And despite his comments last month, he and Trump have other rulings by Curiel to object to, notably his denial last November of a motion by Trump to dismiss the case on summary judgment (Curiel had concluded there were “genuine issues of material fact” to resolve about Trump University) and his decision last March to allow Tarla Makaeff, the lead plaintiff in the class-action case, to drop out and be replaced by another plaintiff. (Makaeff had said she was unable to continue because of pressing health problems. At the request of Trump’s lawyers, Curiel then reviewed her health records and concurred.)
But legal experts say that Petrocelli would have little to no chance of prevailing in a legal motion to recuse Curiel because of perceived bias due to his ethnic background — a major reason he has pointedly failed to file such a motion. “It would have zero legal merit,” said Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor who specializes in legal ethics. “A judge’s ethnicity, gender and race is never a grounds for recusal. It’s quite clear. A lawyer would not make that motion without fear of being sanctioned.”
In fact, Gillers said, there is even legal precedent for sanctioning lawyers who make such motions: In 1998, lawyers in a civil case moved to disqualify federal Judge Denny Chin, who is Asian-American, because some of the parties in the case were also Asian-Americans. Not only was the motion rejected, one of the lawyers was later sanctioned by Judge Chin — a decision that was later upheld by a U.S. appeals court.
There is an even more recent precedent against such recusals in the same judicial circuit where the Trump University case is being tried. One of the parties seeking to overturn a ruling by then U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker in favor of same-sex marriage on the grounds that Walker was gay. In a unanimous ruling in 2012, a U.S Court of Appeals panel rejected the idea that Judge Walker’s sexual preference compromised his impartiality. “To hold otherwise would demonstrate a lack of respect for the integrity of our federal courts,” the judges concluded.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
Monday, June 6, 2016
The T-shirt is the best item!
...................................................................................
"There are plenty of things worse than four years of Clinton with a GOP majority in one or both houses or a generation. One would be Trump in the White House." YES, INDEED!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* "They say Obama has been divisive, arrogant, surrounded by yes men, prone to using the instruments of executive power for political ends, delusional about the state of the world and economically illiterate. Trump, we would argue, is as bad as — or worse than — Obama on each count." This is your problem in a nutshell -- you (and GOP voters) accepted GOP-prepared negative descriptions of President Obama. That these descriptions aren't accurate or real passes without a comment. Now you are trying to tell the same voters that Mr. Trump is really, really bad -- even worse. If they knew the comments about Obama were without merit, why would they believe you now? If they believed what you said about Obama, and they realize that the world and the country isn't in a bad place, why worry?
* He most certainly will not win. You have to have women(who a the majority voters in general election) vote for you, as well as minorities to even have a fighting change to win. He was a 69% disapproval rate with women, and 79% with minorities. Bottom line is he can't win unless he turns this support around in a big way, and unfortunately the damage with these groups is already done. He will lose and will lose big.
* "4. Republicans in the future can disown Trump" Even we assume they can . . . what is the fall-back? Back to the Bushies? Romney? McCain? Gingrich? The party is in serious trouble.
* What a spectacular example of a Trump supporter -- someone who complains that the author of an editorial has a bias.
* The only good that could possible be derived from a Trump presidency is the plethora of material available for Saturday Night Life [sic] shows.
* Give me a freaking break! Trump's been sued over using illegal labor, and he proudly offshores his business profits. He's no solution. He's the face of the problem.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Six silly lies that Trumpkins tell themselves
By Jennifer Rubin, June 6, 2016
Republicans intent on rallying around Donald Trump are falling prey to self-delusion. The logical errors and inconsistencies are piling up.
1. Trump either will change his ludicrous proposals or Congress will stop him from going overboard. (A tax plan to widen the debt by $10 trillion? Don’t worry — Congress won’t pass it!) That assumes Republicans will actually stand up to Trump, a dubious proposition given that they won’t do so now. And it assumes that Trump won’t act in defiance of the courts and Congress. The courts and Congress certainly cannot stop him from rattling allies (which he has already done), buddying up to Russian President Vladimir Putin or ordering the armed services to commit war crimes. And if the courts and Congress really had the power to defuse every presidential misstep, then why not elect Hillary Clinton? After all, the courts and Congress would be there to check her as well.
2. If he changes policies, Trump will be fine. This is akin to saying President Obama’s only problem was liberalism. Trump’s policies not only are dangerous but also are evidence of a deliberate ignorance and moral vapidity. Do we imagine that Trump will suddenly realize everything he has been saying is daft? It is ironic that many of Obama’s qualities, which Republicans have railed against over the past seven years, would be even more problematic with Trump. They say Obama has been divisive, arrogant, surrounded by yes men, prone to using the instruments of executive power for political ends, delusional about the state of the world and economically illiterate. Trump, we would argue, is as bad as — or worse than — Obama on each count.
3. Trump knows he needs to be more “presidential.” There is no chance of that happening anytime soon. As The Post reported, many Republicans “are concerned about repeated comments singling out people for criticism on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion. … Many Republicans are also unnerved by Trump’s decision to continue picking fights with fellow Republicans and to spend time and resources campaigning in California and other Democratic-leaning states that he is extremely unlikely to win in November.” Maybe they should have thought about all that before endorsing him.
4. Republicans in the future can disown Trump. Lanhee Chen, a conservative policy wonk who has worked on a number of presidential campaigns, remarked on “Meet the Press”: “I mean I think, at some point, the Republican Party has to begin to look past just one election. And it seems to me that this sort of focus on a single election and winning a single election is one thing. But we’re only thinking about where is the party headed? What does rhetoric like this do to a party that, in 2012, after the 2012 elections, that tried to assess how successful they could be with minority voters.”
5. Trump will get smart advisers. We are still waiting for them to show up during his campaign. Once gaining office, presidents tend to retreat into an ever-shrinking cocoon of political loyalists whose judgment and policy expertise are questionable. If Trump is starting with Corey Lewandowski, Paul Manafort and a crop of foreign-policy cranks, imagine how dreadful things will be a few years into his term. Given how erratic and toxic Trump’s views are, it is hard to imagine too many deft policy hands joining his administration. (If they did, many may find themselves compelled to resign in short order.)
6. There is no other choice for Republicans. Well, the “Hail Mary” candidacy of National Review writer David French predictably did not get off the ground. But convention delegates have the power to demand that Trump release his tax returns. One of the better-known Republicans, Mitt Romney, for example, can change his mind and decide to run again. Republicans can vote for the Libertarian ticket. They can leave the top of the ticket blank. What is, however, becoming obvious is that the worst choice — one that leads to intellectual incoherence, mockery, denigration of character as a standard for elected office and personal embarrassment — is joining the herd to back Trump. Trump will eventually fade from the scene, but the stain of supporting him will last a lifetime.
In sum, many Republicans are convincing themselves that this election is the most important election ever, that no future election will be as consequential and that failure to put a Republican (no matter how awful) in the White House would be the ruin of the republic. That simply is not true, even with one Supreme Court seat open. (After 2020, maybe more will be open, which might be filled by a GOP president, if the party endures.) There are plenty of things worse than four years of Clinton with a GOP majority in one or both houses or a generation. One would be Trump in the White House. Another would be converting the GOP into a European-style National Front party.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* "They say Obama has been divisive, arrogant, surrounded by yes men, prone to using the instruments of executive power for political ends, delusional about the state of the world and economically illiterate. Trump, we would argue, is as bad as — or worse than — Obama on each count." This is your problem in a nutshell -- you (and GOP voters) accepted GOP-prepared negative descriptions of President Obama. That these descriptions aren't accurate or real passes without a comment. Now you are trying to tell the same voters that Mr. Trump is really, really bad -- even worse. If they knew the comments about Obama were without merit, why would they believe you now? If they believed what you said about Obama, and they realize that the world and the country isn't in a bad place, why worry?
* He most certainly will not win. You have to have women(who a the majority voters in general election) vote for you, as well as minorities to even have a fighting change to win. He was a 69% disapproval rate with women, and 79% with minorities. Bottom line is he can't win unless he turns this support around in a big way, and unfortunately the damage with these groups is already done. He will lose and will lose big.
* "4. Republicans in the future can disown Trump" Even we assume they can . . . what is the fall-back? Back to the Bushies? Romney? McCain? Gingrich? The party is in serious trouble.
* What a spectacular example of a Trump supporter -- someone who complains that the author of an editorial has a bias.
* The only good that could possible be derived from a Trump presidency is the plethora of material available for Saturday Night Life [sic] shows.
* Give me a freaking break! Trump's been sued over using illegal labor, and he proudly offshores his business profits. He's no solution. He's the face of the problem.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Six silly lies that Trumpkins tell themselves
By Jennifer Rubin, June 6, 2016
Republicans intent on rallying around Donald Trump are falling prey to self-delusion. The logical errors and inconsistencies are piling up.
1. Trump either will change his ludicrous proposals or Congress will stop him from going overboard. (A tax plan to widen the debt by $10 trillion? Don’t worry — Congress won’t pass it!) That assumes Republicans will actually stand up to Trump, a dubious proposition given that they won’t do so now. And it assumes that Trump won’t act in defiance of the courts and Congress. The courts and Congress certainly cannot stop him from rattling allies (which he has already done), buddying up to Russian President Vladimir Putin or ordering the armed services to commit war crimes. And if the courts and Congress really had the power to defuse every presidential misstep, then why not elect Hillary Clinton? After all, the courts and Congress would be there to check her as well.
2. If he changes policies, Trump will be fine. This is akin to saying President Obama’s only problem was liberalism. Trump’s policies not only are dangerous but also are evidence of a deliberate ignorance and moral vapidity. Do we imagine that Trump will suddenly realize everything he has been saying is daft? It is ironic that many of Obama’s qualities, which Republicans have railed against over the past seven years, would be even more problematic with Trump. They say Obama has been divisive, arrogant, surrounded by yes men, prone to using the instruments of executive power for political ends, delusional about the state of the world and economically illiterate. Trump, we would argue, is as bad as — or worse than — Obama on each count.
3. Trump knows he needs to be more “presidential.” There is no chance of that happening anytime soon. As The Post reported, many Republicans “are concerned about repeated comments singling out people for criticism on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion. … Many Republicans are also unnerved by Trump’s decision to continue picking fights with fellow Republicans and to spend time and resources campaigning in California and other Democratic-leaning states that he is extremely unlikely to win in November.” Maybe they should have thought about all that before endorsing him.
4. Republicans in the future can disown Trump. Lanhee Chen, a conservative policy wonk who has worked on a number of presidential campaigns, remarked on “Meet the Press”: “I mean I think, at some point, the Republican Party has to begin to look past just one election. And it seems to me that this sort of focus on a single election and winning a single election is one thing. But we’re only thinking about where is the party headed? What does rhetoric like this do to a party that, in 2012, after the 2012 elections, that tried to assess how successful they could be with minority voters.”
5. Trump will get smart advisers. We are still waiting for them to show up during his campaign. Once gaining office, presidents tend to retreat into an ever-shrinking cocoon of political loyalists whose judgment and policy expertise are questionable. If Trump is starting with Corey Lewandowski, Paul Manafort and a crop of foreign-policy cranks, imagine how dreadful things will be a few years into his term. Given how erratic and toxic Trump’s views are, it is hard to imagine too many deft policy hands joining his administration. (If they did, many may find themselves compelled to resign in short order.)
6. There is no other choice for Republicans. Well, the “Hail Mary” candidacy of National Review writer David French predictably did not get off the ground. But convention delegates have the power to demand that Trump release his tax returns. One of the better-known Republicans, Mitt Romney, for example, can change his mind and decide to run again. Republicans can vote for the Libertarian ticket. They can leave the top of the ticket blank. What is, however, becoming obvious is that the worst choice — one that leads to intellectual incoherence, mockery, denigration of character as a standard for elected office and personal embarrassment — is joining the herd to back Trump. Trump will eventually fade from the scene, but the stain of supporting him will last a lifetime.
In sum, many Republicans are convincing themselves that this election is the most important election ever, that no future election will be as consequential and that failure to put a Republican (no matter how awful) in the White House would be the ruin of the republic. That simply is not true, even with one Supreme Court seat open. (After 2020, maybe more will be open, which might be filled by a GOP president, if the party endures.) There are plenty of things worse than four years of Clinton with a GOP majority in one or both houses or a generation. One would be Trump in the White House. Another would be converting the GOP into a European-style National Front party.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Graham, I don't believe in your "hell", so condemning me to it doesn't affect me at all. In fact, I plan to come back to haunt you. So there!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Rev. Graham: Let me remind you that one neither has to believe in a deity (or deities) nor does one not have to believe in a deity (or deities) to be a moral ethical person.
* ... I am with you 100%. People think you are not moral if you don't believe in fairy tales. The loving "Christian" comments that people post against people like us just shows me they are not the Christ like people they profess to be.
* We'll take our chances Graham. You are one of the most hate-filled creatures in our country. Why don't you just shut-up.
* Frank...I hope you know that your intense desire to force Jesus Christ on those who don't believe he exists and/or aren't willing to accept him as a savior kind of puts you on a par with ISIS. Maybe not as murderous, but just as loathsome. People are free to believe or not believe. All your bellyaching isn't going to change that. You lived your wild, reckless youth and now that you're getting old, you're repentant. Well, good boy. But everybody does not have to repent for your "sins".
* If there is a god and Franklin has to stand before him/her I hope god tells him what a rotten person he is. All religion if poison. Just look around the world and all the violence, war and hate that is being done in the name of someone's god. I don't believe in god but that doesn't mean I am not a moral person. I help people and volunteer for different causes. I don't need a fool like Franklin to tell me that I will burn in a hell that doesn't exit. Stop trying to stuff your Christianity down peoples' throats. Mind your own business. Now I await all the hateful comments from loving Christians.
* Fortunately for Rev. Graham, it's not his judgment call to make. He has absolutely nothing to do with who's going where, when and if. Now, it does make for quite a profitable income, as he knows, to say with such smug authority that someone just may burn in hell. What stands out to me is the fact that he somehow seems pleased to deliver this message of "you're going to hell." Sort of like he's enjoying the possibility.
* My life hasn't changed but your religion is troublesome. For instance, I live in the bible belt. This means that the Southern Baptist Cult had it's hand in getting legislation passed after prohibition, to limit or otherwise deny the sale of alcohol in certain areas and/or certain times. In the state of Texas, hard alcohol can not be sold on Sundays and no alcohol can be purchased after midnight on any day. While I don't drink much and this doesn't impact me, it is simply an example of how your religion imposes itself in our legislation. If that's not enough, just have a look what your religion is trying to do to planned parenthood and marriage equality. That's a cancer, as far as I'm concerned.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Rev. Graham to ‘Reason Rally’: Atheists Will Stand Before the God They Disown and May Face Eternity in Hell
By Michael W. Chapman, June 6, 2016
In reaction to the atheists who gathered for the “Reason Rally” on Saturday, evangelist Franklin Graham said it was ironic they were in front of the Lincoln Memorial – a monument that extols God’s rule over this nation – and added that atheists will one day “stand before the God that they disown” and “face an eternity in Hell,” if they have not turned to Christ.
“On Saturday, atheists gathered in DC at the Lincoln Memorial to hold what they called a ‘Reason Rally,’” said Rev. Graham in a June 6 post on Facebook. “The atheists said their focus is secularism and their major political issues are climate change, reproductive rights, and LGBT equality.”
“The atheists said this was definitely a political event, and they are holding it in an election year because, they ‘want to see reason taking precedence over religious-driven ideology,’” said Rev. Graham.
“This liberal godless kind of what they call ‘reason’ should concern every freedom-loving American,” he said.
Rev. Graham continued, “Isn’t it ironic that they met on the grounds of the Lincoln Memorial where these words are engraved in stone: ‘We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain–that this nation UNDER GOD shall have a new birth of freedom.’”
“President Abraham Lincoln acknowledged the inherent role God plays in establishing our rights and freedoms and so did many of our founding fathers,” said Rev. Graham.
“Now these atheists promoting secularism want to strip God out of America's past, present and future,” he said, adding, “Here’s a warning -- If you remove God, you remove God’s hand of blessing. That’s been shown over and over throughout history.”
“What can we do?” said Rev. Graham. “As Christians, we need to urgently share Jesus Christ with an ever-growing secular world.”
“One day each of these people is going to stand before the God that they disown, and they will face an eternity in Hell if they have not trusted Christ as their Savior,” said the reverend. “That’s where this kind of ‘reason’ will get them. The Bible says, ‘There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death’ (Proverbs 14:12).”
The "Reason Rally," held June 4 at the Lincon Memorial, included speakers such as Bill Nye "The Science Guy," scientist Carolyn Porco, who has worked with imaging for NASA, and GZA, a hop hop lyricist. The rally promoted itself as "the biggest gathering of nonreligious people in history!"
Franklin Graham, 63, is the son of world-renowned evangelist Billy Graham. Franklin Graham runs the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) and also oversees the international Christian relief group Samaritan’s Purse. Franklin Graham is married, has five children, and lives in Boone, North Carolina.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Rev. Graham: Let me remind you that one neither has to believe in a deity (or deities) nor does one not have to believe in a deity (or deities) to be a moral ethical person.
* ... I am with you 100%. People think you are not moral if you don't believe in fairy tales. The loving "Christian" comments that people post against people like us just shows me they are not the Christ like people they profess to be.
* We'll take our chances Graham. You are one of the most hate-filled creatures in our country. Why don't you just shut-up.
* Frank...I hope you know that your intense desire to force Jesus Christ on those who don't believe he exists and/or aren't willing to accept him as a savior kind of puts you on a par with ISIS. Maybe not as murderous, but just as loathsome. People are free to believe or not believe. All your bellyaching isn't going to change that. You lived your wild, reckless youth and now that you're getting old, you're repentant. Well, good boy. But everybody does not have to repent for your "sins".
* If there is a god and Franklin has to stand before him/her I hope god tells him what a rotten person he is. All religion if poison. Just look around the world and all the violence, war and hate that is being done in the name of someone's god. I don't believe in god but that doesn't mean I am not a moral person. I help people and volunteer for different causes. I don't need a fool like Franklin to tell me that I will burn in a hell that doesn't exit. Stop trying to stuff your Christianity down peoples' throats. Mind your own business. Now I await all the hateful comments from loving Christians.
* Fortunately for Rev. Graham, it's not his judgment call to make. He has absolutely nothing to do with who's going where, when and if. Now, it does make for quite a profitable income, as he knows, to say with such smug authority that someone just may burn in hell. What stands out to me is the fact that he somehow seems pleased to deliver this message of "you're going to hell." Sort of like he's enjoying the possibility.
* My life hasn't changed but your religion is troublesome. For instance, I live in the bible belt. This means that the Southern Baptist Cult had it's hand in getting legislation passed after prohibition, to limit or otherwise deny the sale of alcohol in certain areas and/or certain times. In the state of Texas, hard alcohol can not be sold on Sundays and no alcohol can be purchased after midnight on any day. While I don't drink much and this doesn't impact me, it is simply an example of how your religion imposes itself in our legislation. If that's not enough, just have a look what your religion is trying to do to planned parenthood and marriage equality. That's a cancer, as far as I'm concerned.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Rev. Graham to ‘Reason Rally’: Atheists Will Stand Before the God They Disown and May Face Eternity in Hell
By Michael W. Chapman, June 6, 2016
In reaction to the atheists who gathered for the “Reason Rally” on Saturday, evangelist Franklin Graham said it was ironic they were in front of the Lincoln Memorial – a monument that extols God’s rule over this nation – and added that atheists will one day “stand before the God that they disown” and “face an eternity in Hell,” if they have not turned to Christ.
“On Saturday, atheists gathered in DC at the Lincoln Memorial to hold what they called a ‘Reason Rally,’” said Rev. Graham in a June 6 post on Facebook. “The atheists said their focus is secularism and their major political issues are climate change, reproductive rights, and LGBT equality.”
“The atheists said this was definitely a political event, and they are holding it in an election year because, they ‘want to see reason taking precedence over religious-driven ideology,’” said Rev. Graham.
“This liberal godless kind of what they call ‘reason’ should concern every freedom-loving American,” he said.
Rev. Graham continued, “Isn’t it ironic that they met on the grounds of the Lincoln Memorial where these words are engraved in stone: ‘We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain–that this nation UNDER GOD shall have a new birth of freedom.’”
“President Abraham Lincoln acknowledged the inherent role God plays in establishing our rights and freedoms and so did many of our founding fathers,” said Rev. Graham.
“Now these atheists promoting secularism want to strip God out of America's past, present and future,” he said, adding, “Here’s a warning -- If you remove God, you remove God’s hand of blessing. That’s been shown over and over throughout history.”
“What can we do?” said Rev. Graham. “As Christians, we need to urgently share Jesus Christ with an ever-growing secular world.”
“One day each of these people is going to stand before the God that they disown, and they will face an eternity in Hell if they have not trusted Christ as their Savior,” said the reverend. “That’s where this kind of ‘reason’ will get them. The Bible says, ‘There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death’ (Proverbs 14:12).”
The "Reason Rally," held June 4 at the Lincon Memorial, included speakers such as Bill Nye "The Science Guy," scientist Carolyn Porco, who has worked with imaging for NASA, and GZA, a hop hop lyricist. The rally promoted itself as "the biggest gathering of nonreligious people in history!"
Franklin Graham, 63, is the son of world-renowned evangelist Billy Graham. Franklin Graham runs the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) and also oversees the international Christian relief group Samaritan’s Purse. Franklin Graham is married, has five children, and lives in Boone, North Carolina.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"When one of these Trump talkers objects to something he says, it suggests the presumptive Republican standard-bearer has offended the sensibilities of even his biggest fans in the media." It's good to know that at least some Trumpistas can be offended.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Any lawyer (or human) with half a brain should be appalled at Donald's outrageous attacks on the independence of the judiciary. I guess her semi-restraint in supporting Trump's latest ridiculous comments indicates that McEany does have half a brain. The human part is still up for debate.
* Here in California, we've seen this kind of judge bashing before. During the Prop 8 trial, Judge Vaughan was criticized for not recusing himself because he's gay. Now, Trump spews toxic venom that because Judge Curiel is hispanic, he should recuse himself from hearing evidence in the fraud cases against Trump University. The subtext here--as in the case with Judge Vaughan--is that only white male heterosexuals can be unbiased and deliver a fair trial. That subtext threatens to undermine our entire system of justice. I say this as a white man, and a lawyer.
* The La Raza thing was something Trump's shoplifter-turned-PR-person got wrong.
* she was also convicted of welfare fraud ... one ignorant fraud hired by the biggest delusional fraud going?
* If Donald Trump's lawyers feel as if there is a conflict of interest they could request another judge. But yet they haven't. This tells me Donald Trump is trying to intimidate the judge. Too bad, so sad, won't work. Anyone with common sense knows better than to trash talk the judge hearing your case.
* "It does make it harder to win the Hispanic community by making this comment." And there in lies the problem! Trumps bigoted speech and remarks should not upset a single group or race, he remarks should upset and outrage ALL Americans. There is no place in our ever growing diverse population for the type of hatred Trump promotes. Wake up America, Trump is a very unprincipled individual and does not belong in the White House representing Freedom, Liberty and the American Citizenry!
* Trump sees the executive position like the one he has ... complete dictatorship .... listen to him threaten - as President - the PGA for moving their golf to another course. The Delusional Donald thinks that the President can issue executive orders for anything that annoys him
...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump’s attack on ‘Mexican’ judge is so bad, even Kayleigh McEnany can’t defend it
By Callum Borchers, June 3, 2016
Kayleigh McEnany can come up with a defense for virtually anything Donald Trump says (see above). When the presumptive Republican presidential nominee echoed a woman in the crowd who called Ted Cruz a "pussy" at a rally in February, McEnany said Trump should be excused because he merely repeated the word and said it was "terrible." (He also encouraged the woman to "shout it out," and his scolding appeared to be less than serious.)
So if CNN's Harvard Law School-educated, in-house Trump supporter can't defend a statement by the candidate, it must be pretty bad.
On Friday, even McEnany conceded that Trump crossed a line when he told the Wall Street Journal that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel's "Mexican heritage" represents an "inherent conflict of interest" in a case involving Trump University.
"It's not relevant, and he shouldn't have made that comment — that's for sure," McEnany said. "It does make it harder to win the Hispanic community by making this comment."
As I've written before, McEnany was critical of Trump's rhetoric early in the campaign. Last June, she said the real estate mogul's assertion that Mexico was sending drug dealers, rapists and other criminals into the United States was "very inappropriate."
But since embracing her role as a pro-Trump pundit in February, McEnany has rarely criticized him. That's why her negative appraisal on Friday is so notable.
It once again highlights the challenge TV networks face in representing the Trump perspective. Shortly after McEnany offered her thoughts on CNN, Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson defended her boss on MSNBC. But that's Pierson's job. At times, it is hard to find any credible commentator — not on the Trump payroll — willing to go to bat for him.
There is a real benefit for viewers here. Trump says so many provocative things that it can be difficult for the casual observer to discern which are truly significant and which will be quickly forgotten.
One way to figure it out: watch McEnany. Or Jeffrey Lord, Scottie Nell Hughes or Carl Higbie. When one of these Trump talkers objects to something he says, it suggests the presumptive Republican standard-bearer has offended the sensibilities of even his biggest fans in the media.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Any lawyer (or human) with half a brain should be appalled at Donald's outrageous attacks on the independence of the judiciary. I guess her semi-restraint in supporting Trump's latest ridiculous comments indicates that McEany does have half a brain. The human part is still up for debate.
* Here in California, we've seen this kind of judge bashing before. During the Prop 8 trial, Judge Vaughan was criticized for not recusing himself because he's gay. Now, Trump spews toxic venom that because Judge Curiel is hispanic, he should recuse himself from hearing evidence in the fraud cases against Trump University. The subtext here--as in the case with Judge Vaughan--is that only white male heterosexuals can be unbiased and deliver a fair trial. That subtext threatens to undermine our entire system of justice. I say this as a white man, and a lawyer.
* The La Raza thing was something Trump's shoplifter-turned-PR-person got wrong.
* she was also convicted of welfare fraud ... one ignorant fraud hired by the biggest delusional fraud going?
* If Donald Trump's lawyers feel as if there is a conflict of interest they could request another judge. But yet they haven't. This tells me Donald Trump is trying to intimidate the judge. Too bad, so sad, won't work. Anyone with common sense knows better than to trash talk the judge hearing your case.
* "It does make it harder to win the Hispanic community by making this comment." And there in lies the problem! Trumps bigoted speech and remarks should not upset a single group or race, he remarks should upset and outrage ALL Americans. There is no place in our ever growing diverse population for the type of hatred Trump promotes. Wake up America, Trump is a very unprincipled individual and does not belong in the White House representing Freedom, Liberty and the American Citizenry!
* Trump sees the executive position like the one he has ... complete dictatorship .... listen to him threaten - as President - the PGA for moving their golf to another course. The Delusional Donald thinks that the President can issue executive orders for anything that annoys him
...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump’s attack on ‘Mexican’ judge is so bad, even Kayleigh McEnany can’t defend it
By Callum Borchers, June 3, 2016
Kayleigh McEnany can come up with a defense for virtually anything Donald Trump says (see above). When the presumptive Republican presidential nominee echoed a woman in the crowd who called Ted Cruz a "pussy" at a rally in February, McEnany said Trump should be excused because he merely repeated the word and said it was "terrible." (He also encouraged the woman to "shout it out," and his scolding appeared to be less than serious.)
So if CNN's Harvard Law School-educated, in-house Trump supporter can't defend a statement by the candidate, it must be pretty bad.
On Friday, even McEnany conceded that Trump crossed a line when he told the Wall Street Journal that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel's "Mexican heritage" represents an "inherent conflict of interest" in a case involving Trump University.
"It's not relevant, and he shouldn't have made that comment — that's for sure," McEnany said. "It does make it harder to win the Hispanic community by making this comment."
As I've written before, McEnany was critical of Trump's rhetoric early in the campaign. Last June, she said the real estate mogul's assertion that Mexico was sending drug dealers, rapists and other criminals into the United States was "very inappropriate."
But since embracing her role as a pro-Trump pundit in February, McEnany has rarely criticized him. That's why her negative appraisal on Friday is so notable.
It once again highlights the challenge TV networks face in representing the Trump perspective. Shortly after McEnany offered her thoughts on CNN, Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson defended her boss on MSNBC. But that's Pierson's job. At times, it is hard to find any credible commentator — not on the Trump payroll — willing to go to bat for him.
There is a real benefit for viewers here. Trump says so many provocative things that it can be difficult for the casual observer to discern which are truly significant and which will be quickly forgotten.
One way to figure it out: watch McEnany. Or Jeffrey Lord, Scottie Nell Hughes or Carl Higbie. When one of these Trump talkers objects to something he says, it suggests the presumptive Republican standard-bearer has offended the sensibilities of even his biggest fans in the media.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"The third-party doctrine states that if you gave away a piece of information freely, the police can get it from whomever you gave it to ... without a warrant." That's not right!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* the court screwed this up. location data requires a warrant according to the patriot act, and the last in carnation of that moved storage of the data from the NSA to private companies supposedly to protect our privacy and have a real court, not FISA issue warrants for the government to obtain it. now this tool of a judge said nah, they can have it all without a warrent
* This is crazy that Police have the authority to get this info from your phone provider. There has to be something regarding privacy a Good lawyer can dig up to sue the Provider for releasing your info. Has to be.
* The 4th amendment has been getting chipped away at for years, this is just the next step in that evolution.
* There should be a quick button on phones for temporarily enabling location services. Yes, I want them when I use google maps and I want to know where to find somewhere I haven't been before. Otherwise, off. Completely off for all apps until I say turn on. Perhaps even specify a time limit when they are turned on.
* That's why I reverted back to a flip phone. I know they can probably figure out how to spy on me with that but it's likely they have a tougher time with it. Also get a pre paid account and don't put your real name on the account
* actually they don't even need your provider, they use a stingray which mimics a cell phone tower thereby making your phone connect to it. once this is done they have total access to your cell phone. and should you be arrested their mode of tracking/garnering information will never mention the stingray (which is illegal to use without a warrant, technically) all they have to do is drive around and your cell phones within their area are all affected. it also (i believe but don't hold me to it i still have some checking into this aspect) uses 2G making any encryption easier to decode.so nobody is safe anymore, whether you're a criminal or just some poor slob trying to do the 9 to 5 they are listening.
* More important is why do the phone companies keep this information in the first place? If I were the head of a cell phone company and wanted to sell a unique service or product then I would not keep the information and advertise this fact. I expect that I would see a good increase in my market share.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Courts Just Said Turning Location Services On Is Like Telling Police They Can Search You
By Mic, June 1, 2016
The U.S. Constitution gives you a solid defense against police who would want to put a tracker on you and follow your location without a warrant. Now, they can just use the little tracker you bought yourself and already carry everywhere: your cell phone.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, put out a ruling with sweeping implications: Police can use months of cell phone location data obtained without a warrant simply by going to your service provider.
The recent history of Fourth Amendment law — most importantly the infamous 2012 Antoine Jones case — establishes that police officers cannot, say, put a GPS device on your car or body to follow your movements over an extended period of time.
But a little caveat called the "third-party doctrine," upheld by Tuesday's ruling, means they never have to.
Third-party doctrine: The third-party doctrine states that if you gave away a piece of information freely, the police can get it from whomever you gave it to — whether that's a bank, a business, a utility company or email server — without a warrant.
For the past couple of years, privacy hawks fought in courts so that the unprecedented treasure trove of data collected by your phone was safe.
"Even if I turn off my GPS, my apps don't know where I am, but my phone company still knows," Nathan Freed Wessler, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, said, as previously reported by Mic. "By just walking around, you're not necessarily consenting to a phone company knowing [your location] and telling the police."
The third-party doctrine was meant to cover information you knowingly provided yourself. As the minority opinion from Circuit Judge James A. Wynn points out, our phones transmit data about our location automatically and constantly.
"Today, the majority saddles us with a rule that does not distinguish between information an individual himself conveys and information that computerized devices automatically record, generate, and transmit," Wynn wrote.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* the court screwed this up. location data requires a warrant according to the patriot act, and the last in carnation of that moved storage of the data from the NSA to private companies supposedly to protect our privacy and have a real court, not FISA issue warrants for the government to obtain it. now this tool of a judge said nah, they can have it all without a warrent
* This is crazy that Police have the authority to get this info from your phone provider. There has to be something regarding privacy a Good lawyer can dig up to sue the Provider for releasing your info. Has to be.
* The 4th amendment has been getting chipped away at for years, this is just the next step in that evolution.
* There should be a quick button on phones for temporarily enabling location services. Yes, I want them when I use google maps and I want to know where to find somewhere I haven't been before. Otherwise, off. Completely off for all apps until I say turn on. Perhaps even specify a time limit when they are turned on.
* That's why I reverted back to a flip phone. I know they can probably figure out how to spy on me with that but it's likely they have a tougher time with it. Also get a pre paid account and don't put your real name on the account
* actually they don't even need your provider, they use a stingray which mimics a cell phone tower thereby making your phone connect to it. once this is done they have total access to your cell phone. and should you be arrested their mode of tracking/garnering information will never mention the stingray (which is illegal to use without a warrant, technically) all they have to do is drive around and your cell phones within their area are all affected. it also (i believe but don't hold me to it i still have some checking into this aspect) uses 2G making any encryption easier to decode.so nobody is safe anymore, whether you're a criminal or just some poor slob trying to do the 9 to 5 they are listening.
* More important is why do the phone companies keep this information in the first place? If I were the head of a cell phone company and wanted to sell a unique service or product then I would not keep the information and advertise this fact. I expect that I would see a good increase in my market share.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Courts Just Said Turning Location Services On Is Like Telling Police They Can Search You
By Mic, June 1, 2016
The U.S. Constitution gives you a solid defense against police who would want to put a tracker on you and follow your location without a warrant. Now, they can just use the little tracker you bought yourself and already carry everywhere: your cell phone.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, put out a ruling with sweeping implications: Police can use months of cell phone location data obtained without a warrant simply by going to your service provider.
The recent history of Fourth Amendment law — most importantly the infamous 2012 Antoine Jones case — establishes that police officers cannot, say, put a GPS device on your car or body to follow your movements over an extended period of time.
But a little caveat called the "third-party doctrine," upheld by Tuesday's ruling, means they never have to.
Third-party doctrine: The third-party doctrine states that if you gave away a piece of information freely, the police can get it from whomever you gave it to — whether that's a bank, a business, a utility company or email server — without a warrant.
For the past couple of years, privacy hawks fought in courts so that the unprecedented treasure trove of data collected by your phone was safe.
"Even if I turn off my GPS, my apps don't know where I am, but my phone company still knows," Nathan Freed Wessler, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, said, as previously reported by Mic. "By just walking around, you're not necessarily consenting to a phone company knowing [your location] and telling the police."
The third-party doctrine was meant to cover information you knowingly provided yourself. As the minority opinion from Circuit Judge James A. Wynn points out, our phones transmit data about our location automatically and constantly.
"By just walking around, you're not necessarily consenting to a phone company knowing [your location] and telling the police."Basic apps like Maps and Uber simply won't work without location services, and many people don't realize all that information is up for grabs without a warrant.
"Today, the majority saddles us with a rule that does not distinguish between information an individual himself conveys and information that computerized devices automatically record, generate, and transmit," Wynn wrote.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Sunday, June 5, 2016
Well, #Lyin'Donald is a misogynist, after all. "The campaign’s lack of gender and ethnic diversity could reinforce the perception, often created by Trump’s own disparaging observations, that he treats women differently than men."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Are you saying it's okay to commit murder because others do it? What happens in the White House is a little different because it doesn't involve equivalent work. Maybe Trump feels he can pay women less for equivalent work because, as he says, women love him
* The choices we face this election are simple; a vote for the republican candidate is a vote for the past, and a vote for the democratic candidate is a vote for the future.
* So far Trump has gotten away with an awful lot. But the media, press, whatever, will dig like they've never dug before. And what they will and have found is not going to bode well for the Trump group. Its going to push some undecided voters that dont like Hillary because of emails(LOL) and will have a big effect on the election. Trump is a piece of work-we all know it and now the dirty laundry is going be hung out to dry.
* Women who work for Trump and are treated unequally, should be no more surprised than women who work for right wing religious organizations, Hobby Lobby, Catholic Church, etc., and are denied insurance coverage for contraception. You can see it's a cobra; so why pick it up?
* In a matter of days, his true level of bigotry, racism and misogyny are shown clearly for everyone but the knuckle draggers to see.
* If anyone thinks that Donald Trump had any idea who's working his campaign you're crazy. He has no clue who's working for him and whether or not they are even human.
* No surprise here. One of the Trump campaign's central plans of attack is to accuse your opponents for what you yourself are guilty of. Essentially, engaging in blatant hypocrisy is a strategy for Don The Con. And because he is a pathological liar, he can't stop it even if he wanted to.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump’s campaign pays women less than men
By Matt Viser, June 4, 2016
Donald Trump has paid men on his campaign staff one-third more than women, while Hillary Clinton has compensated men and women equally, according to a Globe analysis of payroll data for both campaigns.
Trump’s campaign staff is also far less diverse than that of his likely Democratic opponent. Only about 9 percent of his team are minorities, compared with nearly a third of Clinton’s staff.
The Globe analyzed the payroll for both campaigns for April, the most recent month with publicly available data. The snapshot provides clues as to how the aspiring Oval Office occupants might fill a White House team, and to what extent they include people with diverse viewpoints in the inner workings of their organizations.
In an election that is already focused on gender — including Clinton’s quest to be the first female president and Trump’s accusations she is playing the “woman card’’ — the payroll differences stand out.
The women who work for Trump — who account for about 28 percent of his total staff — made an average of about $4,500 in April, according to the Globe analysis. The men made nearly $6,100, or about 35 percent more. The disparity is slightly greater than the gender pay gap nationally.
Of the 15 highest-paid employees for that month, only two were women.
The women working for Clinton — who account for 53 percent of her total staff — took home an average of $3,710. The men made slightly more, at $3,760. Clinton’s staffers, men and women, made less than the women who work for Trump.
On Clinton’s campaign, the highest-paid employee was a woman, Jennifer Palmieri, the campaign’s director of communications. And of the 15 highest-paid employees, eight were men and seven were women.
“Hillary for America has made it a priority to ensure that our staff represents the diversity of our country, and this commitment starts with Hillary Clinton,” said Bernard Coleman, the Clinton campaign’s chief diversity and human resources officer.
Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks — who is among the campaign’s most prominent female employees — did not respond to several requests for comment.
The campaign’s lack of gender and ethnic diversity could reinforce the perception, often created by Trump’s own disparaging observations, that he treats women differently than men. For Republicans who have sought to improve their standing among women and minorities, there is concern that he could set them back.
“If anything, Trump is an aberration even inside the Republican world,” said Kevin Madden, a longtime Republican consultant and presidential campaign veteran. “And for Republicans who have done such a good job putting women in positions of power, the Trump campaign is not a reflection of that.”
Clinton has a significantly larger campaign workforce, with at least 670 campaign workers who made at least $1,000 in April. The total pay for them was $2.5 million.
Trump had 113 employees who were paid a total of $635,000. His operation is far smaller, like a luxury yacht to Clinton’s battleship, which allows him to be more nimble when making campaign decisions but also could put him at a disadvantage in key states.
The Globe compiled the figures using Federal Election Commission records from April, the most recent month available. The analysis captured all employees on the payroll, as well as consultants whose compensation could be identified, who were working enough to make at least $1,000.
The numbers represent the take-home pay for employees, since campaigns separately take out payroll taxes or allow employees to contribute to a 401(k). The figures could change as the campaigns add employees or drop temporary ones.
Pay equity is already a theme in the campaign, along with whether to raise the federal minimum wage and anxiety about the stagnation of middle-class pay.
Clinton frequently brings up pay and gender inequality as part of her standard stump speech. She supports the Paycheck Fairness Act, which attempts to solve pay gender gaps by forcing more transparency around pay, training women to better negotiate wages, and allowing for greater penalties for companies engaging in wage discrimination.
Trump has suggested he favors “equal pay for equal work” but has also questioned the methods for determining whether the work is actually equal.
“Last time I checked, there’s no discount for being a woman,” Clinton said in April. “Groceries don’t cost us less.”
In response to Trump saying that she is playing the “gender card,” Clinton has come up with a line about pay for women: “If talking about equal pay and paid leave and more opportunities for women and girls is playing the gender card, then deal me in.”
Polling throughout the campaign has shown that Trump struggles to appeal to women voters. And that disparity could affect his ability to recruit qualified female campaign workers.
The reason Clinton has many women on her team is “probably that a lot of women are enthusiastic about working for her,” said Hannah Riley Bowles, a senior lecturer in public policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government who conducts research on gender in leadership positions.
“But at the same time, it sounds like this is something she’s taking into account as she thinks about being a leader and creating a leadership team,” she added. “It just sounds like [Trump] doesn’t really have a clear strategy for thinking about gender representation as part of his leadership team.”
Trump in the past has touted some of the high-ranking women he has employed in his businesses, including more recently his daughter Ivanka.
“I have had women working for me in positions that they’ve never worked in terms of . . . so many different jobs,” he said last year in New Hampshire, making reference to a woman in charge of building Trump Tower. “I have given women more opportunity than, I would say, virtually anyone in the construction industry.”
When a voter asked if she, as a woman, would make the same as a man if Trump is president, he responded, “You’re going to make the same if you do as good a job.”
While Trump has several prominent women on his campaign, he has come under scrutiny for not paying them as much as men.
In January, a field organizer in Iowa who had been fired accused Trump’s campaign of sexual discrimination, saying that men doing the same jobs as women were paid more — and were also given more responsibility for planning and speaking during campaign events. Trump’s campaign at the time cast the campaign worker, Elizabeth Mae Davidson, as a disgruntled employee.
“My people tell me she did a terrible job,” Trump told The New York Times.
The complaint has been referred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, according to Davidson’s attorney, Dorothy A. O’Brien. Davidson declined to comment.
Trump has recently sought to elevate the issue by criticizing Clinton for pay inequality at the foundation founded by her and her husband.
“Hypocrisy at the Clinton Foundation: Top male staff made on average $218,029 while top female staff made $153,014 from 2010-2014,” Trump posted last month on his Instagram account.
Politifact reviewed the claim and determined it was “half true.” While the numbers appeared to be accurate, the Trump campaign looked only at less than a dozen employees.
The Globe also tried to identify the racial backgrounds of as many campaign workers as possible, using publicly available photos and data.
Trump, who recently tweeted that he loved Hispanics as he displayed a taco bowl in front of him, appears to have only three campaign workers who are Hispanic and none are in the top reaches of his campaign.
Trump in April had at least four black employees, including most prominently Katrina Pierson, a national spokeswoman who regularly makes the rounds on television to speak on behalf of Trump.
While Trump’s campaign is filled with newcomers to politics, Clinton has scores of campaign veterans who have worked on local races or spent time on other campaigns.
Clinton has about six times more staffers, which can add cost as well as bureaucratic layers that make decisions more difficult.
She has hired outreach directors to Jews, progressives, military families, African-Americans, and the LGBT community. Trump did not appear to have anyone on his payroll with those job descriptions.
[snipped]
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Are you saying it's okay to commit murder because others do it? What happens in the White House is a little different because it doesn't involve equivalent work. Maybe Trump feels he can pay women less for equivalent work because, as he says, women love him
* The choices we face this election are simple; a vote for the republican candidate is a vote for the past, and a vote for the democratic candidate is a vote for the future.
* So far Trump has gotten away with an awful lot. But the media, press, whatever, will dig like they've never dug before. And what they will and have found is not going to bode well for the Trump group. Its going to push some undecided voters that dont like Hillary because of emails(LOL) and will have a big effect on the election. Trump is a piece of work-we all know it and now the dirty laundry is going be hung out to dry.
* Women who work for Trump and are treated unequally, should be no more surprised than women who work for right wing religious organizations, Hobby Lobby, Catholic Church, etc., and are denied insurance coverage for contraception. You can see it's a cobra; so why pick it up?
* In a matter of days, his true level of bigotry, racism and misogyny are shown clearly for everyone but the knuckle draggers to see.
* If anyone thinks that Donald Trump had any idea who's working his campaign you're crazy. He has no clue who's working for him and whether or not they are even human.
* No surprise here. One of the Trump campaign's central plans of attack is to accuse your opponents for what you yourself are guilty of. Essentially, engaging in blatant hypocrisy is a strategy for Don The Con. And because he is a pathological liar, he can't stop it even if he wanted to.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump’s campaign pays women less than men
By Matt Viser, June 4, 2016
Donald Trump has paid men on his campaign staff one-third more than women, while Hillary Clinton has compensated men and women equally, according to a Globe analysis of payroll data for both campaigns.
Trump’s campaign staff is also far less diverse than that of his likely Democratic opponent. Only about 9 percent of his team are minorities, compared with nearly a third of Clinton’s staff.
The Globe analyzed the payroll for both campaigns for April, the most recent month with publicly available data. The snapshot provides clues as to how the aspiring Oval Office occupants might fill a White House team, and to what extent they include people with diverse viewpoints in the inner workings of their organizations.
In an election that is already focused on gender — including Clinton’s quest to be the first female president and Trump’s accusations she is playing the “woman card’’ — the payroll differences stand out.
The women who work for Trump — who account for about 28 percent of his total staff — made an average of about $4,500 in April, according to the Globe analysis. The men made nearly $6,100, or about 35 percent more. The disparity is slightly greater than the gender pay gap nationally.
Of the 15 highest-paid employees for that month, only two were women.
The women working for Clinton — who account for 53 percent of her total staff — took home an average of $3,710. The men made slightly more, at $3,760. Clinton’s staffers, men and women, made less than the women who work for Trump.
On Clinton’s campaign, the highest-paid employee was a woman, Jennifer Palmieri, the campaign’s director of communications. And of the 15 highest-paid employees, eight were men and seven were women.
“Hillary for America has made it a priority to ensure that our staff represents the diversity of our country, and this commitment starts with Hillary Clinton,” said Bernard Coleman, the Clinton campaign’s chief diversity and human resources officer.
Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks — who is among the campaign’s most prominent female employees — did not respond to several requests for comment.
The campaign’s lack of gender and ethnic diversity could reinforce the perception, often created by Trump’s own disparaging observations, that he treats women differently than men. For Republicans who have sought to improve their standing among women and minorities, there is concern that he could set them back.
“If anything, Trump is an aberration even inside the Republican world,” said Kevin Madden, a longtime Republican consultant and presidential campaign veteran. “And for Republicans who have done such a good job putting women in positions of power, the Trump campaign is not a reflection of that.”
Clinton has a significantly larger campaign workforce, with at least 670 campaign workers who made at least $1,000 in April. The total pay for them was $2.5 million.
Trump had 113 employees who were paid a total of $635,000. His operation is far smaller, like a luxury yacht to Clinton’s battleship, which allows him to be more nimble when making campaign decisions but also could put him at a disadvantage in key states.
The Globe compiled the figures using Federal Election Commission records from April, the most recent month available. The analysis captured all employees on the payroll, as well as consultants whose compensation could be identified, who were working enough to make at least $1,000.
The numbers represent the take-home pay for employees, since campaigns separately take out payroll taxes or allow employees to contribute to a 401(k). The figures could change as the campaigns add employees or drop temporary ones.
Pay equity is already a theme in the campaign, along with whether to raise the federal minimum wage and anxiety about the stagnation of middle-class pay.
Clinton frequently brings up pay and gender inequality as part of her standard stump speech. She supports the Paycheck Fairness Act, which attempts to solve pay gender gaps by forcing more transparency around pay, training women to better negotiate wages, and allowing for greater penalties for companies engaging in wage discrimination.
Trump has suggested he favors “equal pay for equal work” but has also questioned the methods for determining whether the work is actually equal.
“Last time I checked, there’s no discount for being a woman,” Clinton said in April. “Groceries don’t cost us less.”
In response to Trump saying that she is playing the “gender card,” Clinton has come up with a line about pay for women: “If talking about equal pay and paid leave and more opportunities for women and girls is playing the gender card, then deal me in.”
Polling throughout the campaign has shown that Trump struggles to appeal to women voters. And that disparity could affect his ability to recruit qualified female campaign workers.
The reason Clinton has many women on her team is “probably that a lot of women are enthusiastic about working for her,” said Hannah Riley Bowles, a senior lecturer in public policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government who conducts research on gender in leadership positions.
“But at the same time, it sounds like this is something she’s taking into account as she thinks about being a leader and creating a leadership team,” she added. “It just sounds like [Trump] doesn’t really have a clear strategy for thinking about gender representation as part of his leadership team.”
Trump in the past has touted some of the high-ranking women he has employed in his businesses, including more recently his daughter Ivanka.
“I have had women working for me in positions that they’ve never worked in terms of . . . so many different jobs,” he said last year in New Hampshire, making reference to a woman in charge of building Trump Tower. “I have given women more opportunity than, I would say, virtually anyone in the construction industry.”
When a voter asked if she, as a woman, would make the same as a man if Trump is president, he responded, “You’re going to make the same if you do as good a job.”
While Trump has several prominent women on his campaign, he has come under scrutiny for not paying them as much as men.
In January, a field organizer in Iowa who had been fired accused Trump’s campaign of sexual discrimination, saying that men doing the same jobs as women were paid more — and were also given more responsibility for planning and speaking during campaign events. Trump’s campaign at the time cast the campaign worker, Elizabeth Mae Davidson, as a disgruntled employee.
“My people tell me she did a terrible job,” Trump told The New York Times.
The complaint has been referred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, according to Davidson’s attorney, Dorothy A. O’Brien. Davidson declined to comment.
Trump has recently sought to elevate the issue by criticizing Clinton for pay inequality at the foundation founded by her and her husband.
“Hypocrisy at the Clinton Foundation: Top male staff made on average $218,029 while top female staff made $153,014 from 2010-2014,” Trump posted last month on his Instagram account.
Politifact reviewed the claim and determined it was “half true.” While the numbers appeared to be accurate, the Trump campaign looked only at less than a dozen employees.
The Globe also tried to identify the racial backgrounds of as many campaign workers as possible, using publicly available photos and data.
Trump, who recently tweeted that he loved Hispanics as he displayed a taco bowl in front of him, appears to have only three campaign workers who are Hispanic and none are in the top reaches of his campaign.
Trump in April had at least four black employees, including most prominently Katrina Pierson, a national spokeswoman who regularly makes the rounds on television to speak on behalf of Trump.
While Trump’s campaign is filled with newcomers to politics, Clinton has scores of campaign veterans who have worked on local races or spent time on other campaigns.
Clinton has about six times more staffers, which can add cost as well as bureaucratic layers that make decisions more difficult.
She has hired outreach directors to Jews, progressives, military families, African-Americans, and the LGBT community. Trump did not appear to have anyone on his payroll with those job descriptions.
[snipped]
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Trump has allowed himself to become mired in these petty battles rather than pivoting to a general-election message and strategy." That's what being thin-skinned does for ya, #Lyin'Donald.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Excellent and on-point article - but just touches the surface of what's going on. The word for Trump's behaviour is "unravelled" - before November it will become "frayed". He seems to get more unstable, while still whining about Clinton's shopworn "issues" of emails, Benghazi, and occasionally 20-year old trash about Bill Clinton (which happened when the US economy was cranking). I'm starting to feel sorry for the guy - I seriously think he's got Alzheimer's coming on.
* Trump has a thin skin. All Hillary and her friends have to do is keep poking him from now until November, and watch him go unhinged without fail. He doesn't even need them. Pick a Hispanic judge, a GOP governor, or fill in the blank. If they look at him wrong between now and the election he's going to spend a week whining about them. I can't remember ever seeing a candidate that was such a cry baby.
* Yup. They should keep poking and baiting him, provoking outbursts and temper tantrums. He has no self control. Maybe Hillary can make a snide comment about his short fingers. And Obama should pound him too, call him a loser and an idiot who didn't find anything about his birth certificate. Trump might even finally fatally slip up and call Obama the N word. His supporters will love that but even the spineless GOP leadership might finally barf.
* I've compared Trump's rabble-rousing, convoluted sentence, disconnected, thin-skinned behaviour to Palin since the beginning, but he's taking it to a new level... spouting stuff like Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong-un. Never imagined such could be a US presidential nominee - the GOP made this guy.
* If it were just his ego, he could be salvaged, but he is the most openly bigoted GOP candidate since Nixon
* Trump called the Trump lawsuit judge a hater, a hater, a hater. “You tell people a lie three times, they will believe anything. You tell people what they want to hear, play to their fantasies, and then you close the deal.” -- Trump in Art of the Deal.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Since clinching the GOP nomination, Trump has gone off stride, off message
By Dan Balz, June 4, 2016
It’s been almost five weeks since Donald Trump’s victory in Indiana made him the presumptive Republican nominee.
Here’s what’s happened since: He’s wasted time, proved to be a sore winner and veered sharply off message. He’s put a higher premium on settling scores than finding a script that will appeal to a wider, general-election audience. Will it cost him?
Trump no doubt takes comfort in national polls that show a close contest against Hillary Clinton. Over the past month, her lead has shrunk dramatically. Bernie Sanders runs better against Trump than she does, although the senator from Vermont has no easy way of becoming the Democratic nominee. Trump, who consumes polls like candy, must like what he sees, but he should still be asking how he gets to an electoral college majority.
For Trump, this could have been a time for magnanimity and for beginning to show that he wants to reach beyond the loyal and passionate base of supporters that sustained him through the primaries. The electorate in the general election will be different and decidedly more diverse than the one that made him the GOP standard-bearer. So far, he’s shown no willingness to acknowledge that.
Trump can’t seem to let go of any perceived slight or grievance. He can’t accept the idea of winning graciously. He still feels disrespected, by fellow Republicans and especially the media. He feels he hasn’t gotten all the credit he deserves. He thinks that even some of his losses during the nomination battle were worthy of more praise than he got at the time.
Every nominee goes through bad stretches. It’s in the nature of the business. Clinton has had hers and will have more. But it’s hard to think of any previous presumptive nominee who has suffered through such a rocky period in the weeks after claiming the nomination. In the aftermath of a remarkable achievement, he has seemed as angry as ever and at times off stride.
Over the past five weeks, Trump has come under ever-closer scrutiny, as is customary for the nominee of a major political party. Close inspection of past decisions, actions and records is part of the process of helping voters understand who might become the next president. Trump has recoiled at what is normal and necessary.
The run of stories about Trump has been unrelenting, raising questions about his business acumen, which hit especially close to home for someone who has been celebrated as the embodiment of success. One article described him as a celebrity businessman who posed secretly as his own PR agent. Another revealed that the candidate who refuses to release his tax returns paid no taxes years ago, according to a 1981 New Jersey gambling regulatory report.
Trump also was hit with tough questions, many from The Washington Post’s David A. Fahrenthold, about whether he had lived up to his claim of raising $6 million for veterans at an event in Iowa this past January. It turned out that one missing million-dollar donation was his own. Pressed on the fundraising pledge to veterans, he held a news conference to provide details and then used most of the time to vilify the media.
Newly released documents from a lawsuit alleging fraud by Trump University raised other troubling questions about the practices of officials at that institution. Trump insists he will win that suit. But he opened a new avenue of attacks by going after the Mexican heritage of U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is based in San Diego and is overseeing the case.
Under fire for doing so, he ramped up his attacks, first in an interview with the Wall Street Journal and then in another with CNN’s Jake Tapper. He accused Curiel, who was born in the United States, of bias against him because, he said, the judge’s heritage conflicts with Trump’s proposal to build a wall on the Mexican border. He rejected assertions that what he was doing was the very definition of racism.
As he has engaged in these battles, he has begun to feel the full force of the Clinton campaign and its allies. On Thursday, Clinton delivered what was billed as a major foreign policy address. It was actually a purely political attack against Trump, albeit one effectively crafted and delivered for maximum impact.
He and his supporters believe that Clinton has gotten a free pass in comparison to the scrutiny he’s now receiving. Clinton has drawn considerable scrutiny over the course of her campaign, with some questions still to be addressed. She has been the focus of a series of damaging stories in the media about her private email server, has been criticized by a State Department inspector general’s report, and is still under FBI investigation. Trump has reached his own verdict. Clinton, he said, “has to go to jail.”
Trump has had success in bringing more and more Republican elected officials to his side, if not exactly uniting the party. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) finally said Thursday that he would vote for Trump in November. Then on Friday, Ryan had to disavow what Trump had said about Curiel. He said he would continue to take issue with Trump as necessary but added that he hopes that won’t be often. The evidence suggests otherwise.
Trump can’t resist airing his frustration with those still outside the tent. He needlessly attacked New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R), who admittedly has not said good things about him. Now he’s done a 180-degree turn, telling the Santa Fe New Mexican that he wants her support and has always respected her.
Trump has allowed himself to become mired in these petty battles rather than pivoting to a general-election message and strategy. He’s spent needless time in California ahead of the state’s Tuesday primary, which will have no bearing on the GOP nomination, rather than concentrating on swing states he must convert in order to be competitive in the electoral college.
He claims he will put California in play in November. California hasn’t voted for a Republican presidential nominee since 1988. In the past six elections, Republicans have lost California by 13, 13, 12, 10, 24 and 23 points.
The latest Field Poll shows him losing California to Clinton by 19 points and to Sanders by 29 points. Yet the most significant thing Trump has done campaigning in the state is to attack Curiel, risking further backlash from a Hispanic community whose power in elections continues to rise.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said several times in recent days that he worries that Trump could do to Hispanics what Barry Goldwater’s 1964 campaign did to African Americans. Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 turned African Americans into the most solid bloc of voters in the Democratic coalition.
Everyone says it’s early, that the general election is still months away, that Clinton can’t even shake off Sanders, that Democrats could have a tumultuous convention, that fear of Clinton will unify all Republicans and that will be enough to win. Maybe. What if the period between now and the conventions turns out to be the decisive phase in shaping and defining the choice for November? If that’s the case, Trump has done little to help himself in the first weeks of that competition.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Excellent and on-point article - but just touches the surface of what's going on. The word for Trump's behaviour is "unravelled" - before November it will become "frayed". He seems to get more unstable, while still whining about Clinton's shopworn "issues" of emails, Benghazi, and occasionally 20-year old trash about Bill Clinton (which happened when the US economy was cranking). I'm starting to feel sorry for the guy - I seriously think he's got Alzheimer's coming on.
* Trump has a thin skin. All Hillary and her friends have to do is keep poking him from now until November, and watch him go unhinged without fail. He doesn't even need them. Pick a Hispanic judge, a GOP governor, or fill in the blank. If they look at him wrong between now and the election he's going to spend a week whining about them. I can't remember ever seeing a candidate that was such a cry baby.
* Yup. They should keep poking and baiting him, provoking outbursts and temper tantrums. He has no self control. Maybe Hillary can make a snide comment about his short fingers. And Obama should pound him too, call him a loser and an idiot who didn't find anything about his birth certificate. Trump might even finally fatally slip up and call Obama the N word. His supporters will love that but even the spineless GOP leadership might finally barf.
* I've compared Trump's rabble-rousing, convoluted sentence, disconnected, thin-skinned behaviour to Palin since the beginning, but he's taking it to a new level... spouting stuff like Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong-un. Never imagined such could be a US presidential nominee - the GOP made this guy.
* If it were just his ego, he could be salvaged, but he is the most openly bigoted GOP candidate since Nixon
* Trump called the Trump lawsuit judge a hater, a hater, a hater. “You tell people a lie three times, they will believe anything. You tell people what they want to hear, play to their fantasies, and then you close the deal.” -- Trump in Art of the Deal.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Since clinching the GOP nomination, Trump has gone off stride, off message
By Dan Balz, June 4, 2016
It’s been almost five weeks since Donald Trump’s victory in Indiana made him the presumptive Republican nominee.
Here’s what’s happened since: He’s wasted time, proved to be a sore winner and veered sharply off message. He’s put a higher premium on settling scores than finding a script that will appeal to a wider, general-election audience. Will it cost him?
Trump no doubt takes comfort in national polls that show a close contest against Hillary Clinton. Over the past month, her lead has shrunk dramatically. Bernie Sanders runs better against Trump than she does, although the senator from Vermont has no easy way of becoming the Democratic nominee. Trump, who consumes polls like candy, must like what he sees, but he should still be asking how he gets to an electoral college majority.
For Trump, this could have been a time for magnanimity and for beginning to show that he wants to reach beyond the loyal and passionate base of supporters that sustained him through the primaries. The electorate in the general election will be different and decidedly more diverse than the one that made him the GOP standard-bearer. So far, he’s shown no willingness to acknowledge that.
Trump can’t seem to let go of any perceived slight or grievance. He can’t accept the idea of winning graciously. He still feels disrespected, by fellow Republicans and especially the media. He feels he hasn’t gotten all the credit he deserves. He thinks that even some of his losses during the nomination battle were worthy of more praise than he got at the time.
Every nominee goes through bad stretches. It’s in the nature of the business. Clinton has had hers and will have more. But it’s hard to think of any previous presumptive nominee who has suffered through such a rocky period in the weeks after claiming the nomination. In the aftermath of a remarkable achievement, he has seemed as angry as ever and at times off stride.
Over the past five weeks, Trump has come under ever-closer scrutiny, as is customary for the nominee of a major political party. Close inspection of past decisions, actions and records is part of the process of helping voters understand who might become the next president. Trump has recoiled at what is normal and necessary.
The run of stories about Trump has been unrelenting, raising questions about his business acumen, which hit especially close to home for someone who has been celebrated as the embodiment of success. One article described him as a celebrity businessman who posed secretly as his own PR agent. Another revealed that the candidate who refuses to release his tax returns paid no taxes years ago, according to a 1981 New Jersey gambling regulatory report.
Trump also was hit with tough questions, many from The Washington Post’s David A. Fahrenthold, about whether he had lived up to his claim of raising $6 million for veterans at an event in Iowa this past January. It turned out that one missing million-dollar donation was his own. Pressed on the fundraising pledge to veterans, he held a news conference to provide details and then used most of the time to vilify the media.
Newly released documents from a lawsuit alleging fraud by Trump University raised other troubling questions about the practices of officials at that institution. Trump insists he will win that suit. But he opened a new avenue of attacks by going after the Mexican heritage of U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is based in San Diego and is overseeing the case.
Under fire for doing so, he ramped up his attacks, first in an interview with the Wall Street Journal and then in another with CNN’s Jake Tapper. He accused Curiel, who was born in the United States, of bias against him because, he said, the judge’s heritage conflicts with Trump’s proposal to build a wall on the Mexican border. He rejected assertions that what he was doing was the very definition of racism.
As he has engaged in these battles, he has begun to feel the full force of the Clinton campaign and its allies. On Thursday, Clinton delivered what was billed as a major foreign policy address. It was actually a purely political attack against Trump, albeit one effectively crafted and delivered for maximum impact.
He and his supporters believe that Clinton has gotten a free pass in comparison to the scrutiny he’s now receiving. Clinton has drawn considerable scrutiny over the course of her campaign, with some questions still to be addressed. She has been the focus of a series of damaging stories in the media about her private email server, has been criticized by a State Department inspector general’s report, and is still under FBI investigation. Trump has reached his own verdict. Clinton, he said, “has to go to jail.”
Trump has had success in bringing more and more Republican elected officials to his side, if not exactly uniting the party. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) finally said Thursday that he would vote for Trump in November. Then on Friday, Ryan had to disavow what Trump had said about Curiel. He said he would continue to take issue with Trump as necessary but added that he hopes that won’t be often. The evidence suggests otherwise.
Trump can’t resist airing his frustration with those still outside the tent. He needlessly attacked New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R), who admittedly has not said good things about him. Now he’s done a 180-degree turn, telling the Santa Fe New Mexican that he wants her support and has always respected her.
Trump has allowed himself to become mired in these petty battles rather than pivoting to a general-election message and strategy. He’s spent needless time in California ahead of the state’s Tuesday primary, which will have no bearing on the GOP nomination, rather than concentrating on swing states he must convert in order to be competitive in the electoral college.
He claims he will put California in play in November. California hasn’t voted for a Republican presidential nominee since 1988. In the past six elections, Republicans have lost California by 13, 13, 12, 10, 24 and 23 points.
The latest Field Poll shows him losing California to Clinton by 19 points and to Sanders by 29 points. Yet the most significant thing Trump has done campaigning in the state is to attack Curiel, risking further backlash from a Hispanic community whose power in elections continues to rise.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said several times in recent days that he worries that Trump could do to Hispanics what Barry Goldwater’s 1964 campaign did to African Americans. Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 turned African Americans into the most solid bloc of voters in the Democratic coalition.
Everyone says it’s early, that the general election is still months away, that Clinton can’t even shake off Sanders, that Democrats could have a tumultuous convention, that fear of Clinton will unify all Republicans and that will be enough to win. Maybe. What if the period between now and the conventions turns out to be the decisive phase in shaping and defining the choice for November? If that’s the case, Trump has done little to help himself in the first weeks of that competition.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Conservatives who instead dismiss what we know about Trump because nobody’s perfect are effectively saying that character does not matter at all to them." That is so sad.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Facts don't matter to conservatives. it's essential to their campaign strategy.
* Thoughtful Republican pundits and columnists are about the only ones in the party that haven't caved in to the totally unqualified for the position con men.
* It's good to see conservatives point out when fellow conservatives have been hypocrites.
* There's a 1st time for everything
* A slow recovery is the norm after a financial recession like occurred in 2008. It is also stupid policy to cut back on public sector employment after a recession. That's exactly what the GOP congress insisted on doing though.
* Yeah, but he is black with a funny sounding name. Besides, they all swore--swore--that the earth would end and here we are in better shape at the end of Obama's term than at the end of the last two Republican presidential terms. Now, one would think self-reflection is in order. But when you do not have a reflection in a mirror....
* It's pretty simple- character matters to them when it works for their side. When it works against them, it doesn't matter. It's no different on policy issues (national debt, Iraq war, etc.)
* Actually, Trump has a much more casual relationship with facts and truth that Clinton. About 75% of what she says is rated True, but only 25% for him. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12...
...................................................................................................................................................................
Conservatives' Message: Character Doesn't Matter
By Ramesh Ponnuru, June 3, 2016
Once upon a time, we called it “the character issue.” It was a major part of the conservative attack on Bill Clinton in the 1990s: He was a draft-dodging adulterer and therefore unworthy of the office of the presidency.
Most conservatives are making a different judgment about Donald Trump. He too avoided the draft, and he has even bragged about affairs with married women. But conservatives are supporting him.
Charles Kesler, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and editor of the Claremont Review of Books, speculates about the cause of conservatives’ tolerance for Trump.
This line of thinking itself represents a new lowering of public standards.
One difference between Trump and previous presidents -- a difference that Kesler notes -- is that the public had no way of knowing about most of their vices before voting for them. (Nixon’s swearing on the Watergate tapes, while not the focus of public concern, was scandalous.) Many voters will be choosing Trump while knowing a lot about his.
And truly comparing Trump to those flawed presidents would not come out well for him. They had more virtues against which to judge those vices: Many of them had served in the military in wartime, and they had taken the time to learn the basics about government.
Then there are the dimensions of those vices. People often criticize Trump for “vulgarity,” but that makes it sound as if he merely uses the wrong fork or decorates gaudily. To insinuate that a rival candidate’s father was involved in assassinating a president, or to go after the candidate's wife’s looks, or to attack a reporter for being disabled—and then lie about all of these offenses: These are novelties in a presidential race. So is a candidate’s having established a business that is credibly alleged to have been an essentially fraudulent enterprise preying on the vulnerable.
A voter should care about a candidate’s character for two reasons. The first relates to job performance. Would the candidate seek the common good and exercise mature judgment in office? No president hits those marks every time, but some people inspire more confidence than others.
The second concerns our culture. Trump’s success in the presidential race so far reflects a cultural rot: It would once have been impossible for someone like him to win the nomination. But it also deepens that rot. If we elevate a man we know to be cruel, impulsive, insecure, vain and dishonest to the most powerful position in our country, that choice helps to define our own character and shape our expectations for one another. It also means that our political debate will be dumber, nastier and more content-free.
A candidate’s character isn’t everything. It has to be weighed along with his philosophy, his public-policy positions, his knowledge and intelligence. And it has to be weighed against the character of his opponent.
Weighing all of these considerations in the balance, most conservatives will conclude that Trump, for all his flaws, is better than Hillary Clinton. Any such judgment should be made with both eyes open. Conservatives who instead dismiss what we know about Trump because nobody’s perfect are effectively saying that character does not matter at all to them.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Facts don't matter to conservatives. it's essential to their campaign strategy.
* Thoughtful Republican pundits and columnists are about the only ones in the party that haven't caved in to the totally unqualified for the position con men.
* It's good to see conservatives point out when fellow conservatives have been hypocrites.
* There's a 1st time for everything
* A slow recovery is the norm after a financial recession like occurred in 2008. It is also stupid policy to cut back on public sector employment after a recession. That's exactly what the GOP congress insisted on doing though.
* Yeah, but he is black with a funny sounding name. Besides, they all swore--swore--that the earth would end and here we are in better shape at the end of Obama's term than at the end of the last two Republican presidential terms. Now, one would think self-reflection is in order. But when you do not have a reflection in a mirror....
* It's pretty simple- character matters to them when it works for their side. When it works against them, it doesn't matter. It's no different on policy issues (national debt, Iraq war, etc.)
* Actually, Trump has a much more casual relationship with facts and truth that Clinton. About 75% of what she says is rated True, but only 25% for him. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12...
...................................................................................................................................................................
Conservatives' Message: Character Doesn't Matter
By Ramesh Ponnuru, June 3, 2016
Once upon a time, we called it “the character issue.” It was a major part of the conservative attack on Bill Clinton in the 1990s: He was a draft-dodging adulterer and therefore unworthy of the office of the presidency.
Most conservatives are making a different judgment about Donald Trump. He too avoided the draft, and he has even bragged about affairs with married women. But conservatives are supporting him.
Charles Kesler, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and editor of the Claremont Review of Books, speculates about the cause of conservatives’ tolerance for Trump.
[H]is vices have been exhaustively condemned but never examined in comparative perspective. Do obscenities fall from his lips more readily than they did from Lyndon Johnson’s or Richard Nixon’s? Are the circumstances of his three marriages more shameful than the circumstances of John F. Kennedy’s pathologically unfaithful one—or for that matter, Bill Clinton’s humiliatingly unfaithful one? Have any of his egotistical excesses rivaled Andrew Jackson’s killing a man in a duel over a horse racing bet and an insult to Jackson’s wife? The point is not to extenuate Trump’s faults but to understand how millions of voters see him.What these voters are thinking, on Kesler’s plausible explanation, is that it would be nothing new to elect a president with serious character flaws. Trump backer Robert Jeffress, a prominent pastor in Dallas, makes a version of this argument. Conservative Christians backed Ronald Reagan even though he had been married twice. Many of them supported the thrice-married Newt Gingrich even knowing he had committed adultery. To refuse to support Trump on character grounds would require “selective amnesia,” Jeffress concludes.
This line of thinking itself represents a new lowering of public standards.
One difference between Trump and previous presidents -- a difference that Kesler notes -- is that the public had no way of knowing about most of their vices before voting for them. (Nixon’s swearing on the Watergate tapes, while not the focus of public concern, was scandalous.) Many voters will be choosing Trump while knowing a lot about his.
And truly comparing Trump to those flawed presidents would not come out well for him. They had more virtues against which to judge those vices: Many of them had served in the military in wartime, and they had taken the time to learn the basics about government.
Then there are the dimensions of those vices. People often criticize Trump for “vulgarity,” but that makes it sound as if he merely uses the wrong fork or decorates gaudily. To insinuate that a rival candidate’s father was involved in assassinating a president, or to go after the candidate's wife’s looks, or to attack a reporter for being disabled—and then lie about all of these offenses: These are novelties in a presidential race. So is a candidate’s having established a business that is credibly alleged to have been an essentially fraudulent enterprise preying on the vulnerable.
A voter should care about a candidate’s character for two reasons. The first relates to job performance. Would the candidate seek the common good and exercise mature judgment in office? No president hits those marks every time, but some people inspire more confidence than others.
The second concerns our culture. Trump’s success in the presidential race so far reflects a cultural rot: It would once have been impossible for someone like him to win the nomination. But it also deepens that rot. If we elevate a man we know to be cruel, impulsive, insecure, vain and dishonest to the most powerful position in our country, that choice helps to define our own character and shape our expectations for one another. It also means that our political debate will be dumber, nastier and more content-free.
A candidate’s character isn’t everything. It has to be weighed along with his philosophy, his public-policy positions, his knowledge and intelligence. And it has to be weighed against the character of his opponent.
Weighing all of these considerations in the balance, most conservatives will conclude that Trump, for all his flaws, is better than Hillary Clinton. Any such judgment should be made with both eyes open. Conservatives who instead dismiss what we know about Trump because nobody’s perfect are effectively saying that character does not matter at all to them.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Saturday, June 4, 2016
"... Trump’s attacks on Judge Curiel signal a level of disregard for the independence of the U.S. judiciary ..." #Lyin'Donald/#TruthlessTrump just doesn't care about that.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Is a reluctant endorsement really an endorsement?
* Simple solution: don't vote for, support, or publicly endorse someone who you profoundly disagree with. That would require integrity, though.
* Ryan endorses Trump but not any of Trumps statements! Please explain how that works.
* He is scared to pick a side, he is scared of being primaried so he will do what he thinks is best for his odds of re-election, and that seems to be trying to dance with the far right wing of the party without losing the rest of the party. He deserves to lose them both for failing to stand by any kind of principles.
* The Republican party are irresponsible knowing how Trump is unqualified, a fool, a liar and unpresidential yet they support him anyway. They would allow this country to get into a major war or worse just to support their party, now that is sick.
* Mexican isn't a race, it's a nationality.
* Seriously I thought Ryan was smarter than this! What did he think would happen, endorse the man and he will throw it right back at you. Other than they want a Republican president how can they believe that this mentally sick man could be the president!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump endorsement already a headache for Paul Ryan
By Jon Ward, June 3, 2016
House Speaker Paul Ryan may have endorsed Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, but his office said Friday that he will not encourage other Republicans to support their party’s presumptive nominee.
And just one day after Ryan announced that he will vote for Trump, which came after a month-long standoff, the speaker denounced him for racially tinged criticisms of a federal judge.
During a Wisconsin radio interview with News Talk 1130 WISN, Ryan condemned Trump’s recent remarks questioning the fitness of U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. Trump suggested that Curiel’s Mexican heritage was a conflict of interest in a civil case he is overseeing against the now defunct Trump University.
“The comment about the judge the other day just was out of left field from my mind,” Ryan said. “It’s reasoning I don’t relate to. I completely disagree with the thinking behind that.”
Ryan said that the comment was evidence that Trump “clearly says and does things I don’t agree with, and I’ve had to speak up from time to time when that has occurred.”
Indeed, before Ryan said a month ago he was not ready to endorse Trump because he had concerns about his commitment to the Constitution and to conservative principles, he had publicly criticized Trump on several occasions.
“I’ll continue to do that if it’s necessary. I hope it’s not,” Ryan said Friday.
But it’s not as if Trump’s comments on Thursday could have caught Ryan by surprise. Trump first complained about Curiel back in February, and even then questioned his ability to preside over the Trump University case based on the fact that Curiel, who was born and raised in Indiana, is Latino.
“There’s a hostility toward me by the judge, tremendous hostility, beyond belief. I believe he happens to be Spanish, which is fine, he’s Hispanic,” Trump said in February.
Trump attacked Curiel by name numerous times during a speech last week in San Diego, calling him “a hater,” saying “he should be ashamed of himself,” and again raising his ethnic background. And then in an interview with the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, Trump said that Curiel had “an inherent conflict of interest in the case” because he was “of Mexican heritage.”
“I’m building a wall” across the U.S.-Mexican border, Trump said.
Numerous legal and political observers have noted that Trump’s attacks on Judge Curiel signal a level of disregard for the independence of the U.S. judiciary, which is one of the three coequal branches that check and balance each other. America’s founding fathers created the nation’s constitutional system with the intent to prevent excessive power from being concentrated in any one place in the government, and to insulate the government from being overly responsive to popular passions.
Trump has repeatedly expressed a desire to act unilaterally as president. He has talked about forcing members of the military to commit war crimes and making it easier to sue media organizations. He has also publicly threatened critics.
Political experts have noted that if Trump won the election this fall, he could attempt to use his massive public platform and celebrity, as well as the substantial powers of the federal government, to go after those who do not support his agenda.
Ryan said Friday that he had spoken with Trump about “executive overreach” and found the businessman and reality TV personality responsive to his concerns.
But many conservatives sympathetic to Ryan believe that Trump’s assurances are worthless, because Trump has repeatedly shown a tendency to backtrack on his own statements. Ryan boosters expressed bafflement over the timing of this week’s Trump endorsement, but some said they thought he was likely trying to protect his six-point reform agenda from Trump criticism as the speaker unveils each piece over the next three weeks.
“Our goal is to spend this summer and this fall talking with our fellow citizens about these ideas, about these principles, about these policies,” Ryan said.
If Ryan is attempting to insulate his policy agenda and tie Trump to it, then his endorsement of Trump was also a concession to political pressures. Ryan does not want to be blamed in any way for a Trump loss, because it would give oxygen to the forces that have created him. Many political insiders of both parties see Trump as a fool or dangerous, or both, and Republicans who hope or expect him to fail are mostly trying to get out of his way so that they can pick up the pieces after he loses the election this fall to Clinton.
And so, despite Ryan’s endorsement of Trump, he will also likely do as little as possible to support his candidacy. A Ryan aide told Yahoo News that he would not be encouraging other Republicans one way or another on whether to support Trump.
Ryan “was speaking for himself,” the aide said of the speaker’s Thursday op-ed, in which he said he would vote for Trump. “This is a decision individuals will make on their own. The speaker believes we need to be unified this fall to beat [likely Democratic nominee Hillary] Clinton.”
The aide also said that Ryan and Trump have had “approximately five conversations,” and that the “conversations will continue.” Ryan said Thursday in his endorsement of Trump that over the course of their conversations he had become confident that the governing agenda he is presenting, starting next week, would have a willing partner in Trump if he were to become president.
Ryan is rolling out the first of six agenda items — welfare reform — next Tuesday. He told Vicki McKenna of WISN that during his talks with Trump (including a high-profile face-to-face meeting at the Republican National Committee last month) they had reached “a comfortable understanding of each other, not just the two of us as people but just as the relationship between a Trump presidency and a Republican Congress.”
“At the end of the day, this agenda we’re rolling out — which is our conservative principles — it is clear to me that we have somebody who is a willing partner in advancing these things and I know for darn sure Hillary Clinton is going to go in the opposite direction,” Ryan told McKenna.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Is a reluctant endorsement really an endorsement?
* Simple solution: don't vote for, support, or publicly endorse someone who you profoundly disagree with. That would require integrity, though.
* Ryan endorses Trump but not any of Trumps statements! Please explain how that works.
* He is scared to pick a side, he is scared of being primaried so he will do what he thinks is best for his odds of re-election, and that seems to be trying to dance with the far right wing of the party without losing the rest of the party. He deserves to lose them both for failing to stand by any kind of principles.
* The Republican party are irresponsible knowing how Trump is unqualified, a fool, a liar and unpresidential yet they support him anyway. They would allow this country to get into a major war or worse just to support their party, now that is sick.
* Mexican isn't a race, it's a nationality.
* Seriously I thought Ryan was smarter than this! What did he think would happen, endorse the man and he will throw it right back at you. Other than they want a Republican president how can they believe that this mentally sick man could be the president!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump endorsement already a headache for Paul Ryan
By Jon Ward, June 3, 2016
House Speaker Paul Ryan may have endorsed Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, but his office said Friday that he will not encourage other Republicans to support their party’s presumptive nominee.
And just one day after Ryan announced that he will vote for Trump, which came after a month-long standoff, the speaker denounced him for racially tinged criticisms of a federal judge.
During a Wisconsin radio interview with News Talk 1130 WISN, Ryan condemned Trump’s recent remarks questioning the fitness of U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. Trump suggested that Curiel’s Mexican heritage was a conflict of interest in a civil case he is overseeing against the now defunct Trump University.
“The comment about the judge the other day just was out of left field from my mind,” Ryan said. “It’s reasoning I don’t relate to. I completely disagree with the thinking behind that.”
Ryan said that the comment was evidence that Trump “clearly says and does things I don’t agree with, and I’ve had to speak up from time to time when that has occurred.”
Indeed, before Ryan said a month ago he was not ready to endorse Trump because he had concerns about his commitment to the Constitution and to conservative principles, he had publicly criticized Trump on several occasions.
“I’ll continue to do that if it’s necessary. I hope it’s not,” Ryan said Friday.
But it’s not as if Trump’s comments on Thursday could have caught Ryan by surprise. Trump first complained about Curiel back in February, and even then questioned his ability to preside over the Trump University case based on the fact that Curiel, who was born and raised in Indiana, is Latino.
“There’s a hostility toward me by the judge, tremendous hostility, beyond belief. I believe he happens to be Spanish, which is fine, he’s Hispanic,” Trump said in February.
Trump attacked Curiel by name numerous times during a speech last week in San Diego, calling him “a hater,” saying “he should be ashamed of himself,” and again raising his ethnic background. And then in an interview with the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, Trump said that Curiel had “an inherent conflict of interest in the case” because he was “of Mexican heritage.”
“I’m building a wall” across the U.S.-Mexican border, Trump said.
Numerous legal and political observers have noted that Trump’s attacks on Judge Curiel signal a level of disregard for the independence of the U.S. judiciary, which is one of the three coequal branches that check and balance each other. America’s founding fathers created the nation’s constitutional system with the intent to prevent excessive power from being concentrated in any one place in the government, and to insulate the government from being overly responsive to popular passions.
Trump has repeatedly expressed a desire to act unilaterally as president. He has talked about forcing members of the military to commit war crimes and making it easier to sue media organizations. He has also publicly threatened critics.
Political experts have noted that if Trump won the election this fall, he could attempt to use his massive public platform and celebrity, as well as the substantial powers of the federal government, to go after those who do not support his agenda.
Ryan said Friday that he had spoken with Trump about “executive overreach” and found the businessman and reality TV personality responsive to his concerns.
But many conservatives sympathetic to Ryan believe that Trump’s assurances are worthless, because Trump has repeatedly shown a tendency to backtrack on his own statements. Ryan boosters expressed bafflement over the timing of this week’s Trump endorsement, but some said they thought he was likely trying to protect his six-point reform agenda from Trump criticism as the speaker unveils each piece over the next three weeks.
“Our goal is to spend this summer and this fall talking with our fellow citizens about these ideas, about these principles, about these policies,” Ryan said.
If Ryan is attempting to insulate his policy agenda and tie Trump to it, then his endorsement of Trump was also a concession to political pressures. Ryan does not want to be blamed in any way for a Trump loss, because it would give oxygen to the forces that have created him. Many political insiders of both parties see Trump as a fool or dangerous, or both, and Republicans who hope or expect him to fail are mostly trying to get out of his way so that they can pick up the pieces after he loses the election this fall to Clinton.
And so, despite Ryan’s endorsement of Trump, he will also likely do as little as possible to support his candidacy. A Ryan aide told Yahoo News that he would not be encouraging other Republicans one way or another on whether to support Trump.
Ryan “was speaking for himself,” the aide said of the speaker’s Thursday op-ed, in which he said he would vote for Trump. “This is a decision individuals will make on their own. The speaker believes we need to be unified this fall to beat [likely Democratic nominee Hillary] Clinton.”
The aide also said that Ryan and Trump have had “approximately five conversations,” and that the “conversations will continue.” Ryan said Thursday in his endorsement of Trump that over the course of their conversations he had become confident that the governing agenda he is presenting, starting next week, would have a willing partner in Trump if he were to become president.
Ryan is rolling out the first of six agenda items — welfare reform — next Tuesday. He told Vicki McKenna of WISN that during his talks with Trump (including a high-profile face-to-face meeting at the Republican National Committee last month) they had reached “a comfortable understanding of each other, not just the two of us as people but just as the relationship between a Trump presidency and a Republican Congress.”
“At the end of the day, this agenda we’re rolling out — which is our conservative principles — it is clear to me that we have somebody who is a willing partner in advancing these things and I know for darn sure Hillary Clinton is going to go in the opposite direction,” Ryan told McKenna.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"'... what he is doing is disgusting. I am livid about it, and if this is his strategy to win over Hispanics, he's got a hell of a wake-up call coming to him come November.'" Ana, you know that #Lyin'Trump is delusional.
...................................................................................................................................................................
CNN's Ana Navarro tears into Trump over criticism of Mexican-American judge
By Theodore Schleifer, June 3, 2016
...................................................................................................................................................................
CNN's Ana Navarro tears into Trump over criticism of Mexican-American judge
By Theodore Schleifer, June 3, 2016
Republican strategist and CNN contributor Ana Navarro excoriated Donald Trump on Friday for attacking a judge with Mexican heritage who is presiding over a lawsuit against Trump University.
Speaking to CNN's Jake Tapper on Friday, Trump doubled down on his criticism that U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel was biased against him because of his tough policy proposals against Mexico and illegal immigration.
Curiel last week ordered parts of internal documents, including "playbooks" regarding running the enterprise, to be released as part of a lawsuit against Trump University in response to a request by The Washington Post.
Navarro said the presumptive GOP presidential nominee was merely trying to distract from misconduct by the now-defunct school.
"It is highly offensive as a Hispanic. What he is doing is wagging the dog," Navarro told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room." "How dare he. How dare he question a judge's responsibility, a judge's adherence to the Constitution, because he is of Mexican descent? This man was born in East Chicago. He is an American citizen. He is just as American as Donald Trump."
She continued: "Mexican-Americans bleed, just as any other American, when they go to war. They bled just as any other American on 9/11. They fight for America. They are Americans. And what he is doing is disgusting. I am livid about it, and if this is his strategy to win over Hispanics, he's got a hell of a wake-up call coming to him come November."
Navarro, who backed former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush during his unsuccessful presidential campaign, said she doesn't currently have a candidate to support. She replied "hell, no" when asked if she'd vote for likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
"... in fact Trump University was only interested in selling every person the most expensive seminars they possibly could." Can you say SCAM?
...................................................................................................................................................................
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: IT’S WORSE THAN YOU THINK
By John Cassidy, June 2, 2016
Following the release, earlier this week, of testimony filed in a federal lawsuit against Trump University, the United States is facing a high-stakes social-science experiment. Will one of the world’s leading democracies elect as its President a businessman who founded and operated a for-profit learning annex that some of its own employees regarded as a giant rip-off, and that the highest legal officer in New York State has described as a classic bait-and-switch scheme?
If anyone still has any doubt about the troubling nature of Donald Trump’s record, he or she should be obliged to read the affidavit of Ronald Schnackenberg, a former salesman for Trump University. Schnackenberg’s testimony was one of the documents unsealed by a judge in the class-action suit, which was brought in California by some of Trump University’s disgruntled former attendees.
Schnackenberg, who worked in Trump’s office at 40 Wall Street, testified that “while Trump University claimed it wanted to help consumers make money in real estate, in fact Trump University was only interested in selling every person the most expensive seminars they possibly could.” The affidavit concludes, “Based upon my personal experience and employment, I believe that Trump University was a fraudulent scheme, and that it preyed upon the elderly and uneducated to separate them from their money.”
In one sense, the latest revelations don’t break much new ground. Back in 2013, when the office of Eric Schneiderman, New York’s Attorney General, filed a civil lawsuit against Trump and some of his associates, the complaint, which is also worth reading in full, made perfectly clear what sort of organization it was targeting. Despite Trump University’s claim that it offered “graduate programs, post graduate programs, doctorate programs,” it wasn’t a university at all. It was a company that purported to be selling Trump’s secret insights into how to make money in real estate. From the time Trump University began operating, in 2005, the A.G.’s office repeatedly warned the company that it was breaking the law by calling itself a university. (In New York State, universities have to obtain a state charter.)
That was the bait—or, rather, the initial bait. According to the Attorney General’s complaint, the free classes were merely a marketing device. There, Trump University’s instructors “engaged in a methodical, Systematic Series of misrepresentations” designed to convince students to sign up for a three-day seminar, where they would learn Trump’s personal techniques and strategies for investing, at a cost of about fifteen hundred dollars.
When it began, Trump University offered online classes, but it quickly switched its focus to live classes and seminars, the first of which was free to attend. One of the company’s ads said of Trump, “He’s the most celebrated entrepreneur on earth. . . . And now he’s ready to share—with Americans like you—the Trump process for investing in today’s once-in-a-lifetime real estate market.” The ad said that Trump had “hand-picked” Trump University’s instructors, and it ended with a quote from him: “I can turn anyone into a successful real estate investor, including you.”
In fact, Trump hadn’t handpicked the instructors, and he didn’t attend the three-day seminars. Moreover, the complaint said, “no specific Donald Trump techniques or strategies were taught during the seminars, Donald Trump ‘never’ reviewed any of Trump University’s curricula or programming materials, nor did he review any of the content for the free seminars or the three day seminars.” So what were the attendees taught? According to the complaint, “the contents and material presented by Trump University were developed in large part by a third-party company that creates and develops materials for an array of motivational speakers and Seminar and timeshare rental companies.” The closest that the attendees at the seminars got to Trump was when they were encouraged to have their picture taken with a life-size photo of him.
The alleged scam didn’t stop there. Trump University instructors told people who attended the three-day seminars that this wasn’t enough time to learn how to succeed, and encouraged them to purchase additional “mentorship” programs, which cost up to thirty-five thousand dollars. The complaint explained,
One of Schnackenberg’s contributions, in his testimony, was to illustrate how these tactics worked with individuals. Recounting his experience with one couple, which included a man who was on disability, he said, “After the hard-sell sales presentation, they were considering purchasing the $35,000 Elite program. I did not feel it was an appropriate program for them because of their precarious financial condition.” Far from being commended by his bosses for his honesty, Schnackenberg said that he was reprimanded. Another salesperson then “talked them into buying the $35,000 program after I refused to sell this program to them,” he testified. “I was disgusted by this conduct and decided to resign.”
Trump denies any wrongdoing. Citing surveys that he claims show that Trump University got high approval ratings from its customers, he has set up a Web site at 98percentapproval.com, which features testimonials from Trump University attendees and attacks on the Attorney General. Trump’s lawyers also told the Times that other testimony in the California case had discredited the charges made by former employees. Hope Hicks, Trump’s campaign spokesperson, said that he was looking forward to his day in court.
So far, though, Trump has failed in his efforts to have the lawsuits in California and New York thrown out. And, whatever happens to the legal cases, the allegations will dog him all the way to November. On Wednesday, Hillary Clinton offered a preview of what is to come, calling Trump a “fraud” who is “trying to scam America the way he scammed all those people at Trump University.”
The Clinton campaign is clearly hoping that Trump University will be to Trump as Bain Capital was to Mitt Romney—a way to portray him as just another selfish rich guy who is out to profit at the expense of ordinary folk. Commenting on Twitter, Clinton’s press secretary, Brian Fallon, wrote, “Trump U is devastating because it’s metaphor for his whole campaign: promising hardworking Americans way to get ahead, but all based on lies.”
So will Trump University be the thing that brings Trump down? In a post for The New Republic, Brian Beutler argued that it will be “devastating” to him. On my Twitter feed, some people reacted more skeptically, pointing out that many of Trump’s supporters appear oblivious to any criticisms of him, and that Clinton isn’t necessarily the ideal prosecutor. It is also worth recalling that, in Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, another populist businessman, served as Prime Minister four times despite a list of allegations against him that included bribery, tax evasion, sexual misconduct, and having ties to the mafia.
One thing is clear, though. If the revelations about Trump University don’t do any damage to Trump, it’s time to worry—or worry even more—about American democracy.
...................................................................................................................................................................
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: IT’S WORSE THAN YOU THINK
By John Cassidy, June 2, 2016
Following the release, earlier this week, of testimony filed in a federal lawsuit against Trump University, the United States is facing a high-stakes social-science experiment. Will one of the world’s leading democracies elect as its President a businessman who founded and operated a for-profit learning annex that some of its own employees regarded as a giant rip-off, and that the highest legal officer in New York State has described as a classic bait-and-switch scheme?
If anyone still has any doubt about the troubling nature of Donald Trump’s record, he or she should be obliged to read the affidavit of Ronald Schnackenberg, a former salesman for Trump University. Schnackenberg’s testimony was one of the documents unsealed by a judge in the class-action suit, which was brought in California by some of Trump University’s disgruntled former attendees.
Schnackenberg, who worked in Trump’s office at 40 Wall Street, testified that “while Trump University claimed it wanted to help consumers make money in real estate, in fact Trump University was only interested in selling every person the most expensive seminars they possibly could.” The affidavit concludes, “Based upon my personal experience and employment, I believe that Trump University was a fraudulent scheme, and that it preyed upon the elderly and uneducated to separate them from their money.”
In one sense, the latest revelations don’t break much new ground. Back in 2013, when the office of Eric Schneiderman, New York’s Attorney General, filed a civil lawsuit against Trump and some of his associates, the complaint, which is also worth reading in full, made perfectly clear what sort of organization it was targeting. Despite Trump University’s claim that it offered “graduate programs, post graduate programs, doctorate programs,” it wasn’t a university at all. It was a company that purported to be selling Trump’s secret insights into how to make money in real estate. From the time Trump University began operating, in 2005, the A.G.’s office repeatedly warned the company that it was breaking the law by calling itself a university. (In New York State, universities have to obtain a state charter.)
That was the bait—or, rather, the initial bait. According to the Attorney General’s complaint, the free classes were merely a marketing device. There, Trump University’s instructors “engaged in a methodical, Systematic Series of misrepresentations” designed to convince students to sign up for a three-day seminar, where they would learn Trump’s personal techniques and strategies for investing, at a cost of about fifteen hundred dollars.
When it began, Trump University offered online classes, but it quickly switched its focus to live classes and seminars, the first of which was free to attend. One of the company’s ads said of Trump, “He’s the most celebrated entrepreneur on earth. . . . And now he’s ready to share—with Americans like you—the Trump process for investing in today’s once-in-a-lifetime real estate market.” The ad said that Trump had “hand-picked” Trump University’s instructors, and it ended with a quote from him: “I can turn anyone into a successful real estate investor, including you.”
In fact, Trump hadn’t handpicked the instructors, and he didn’t attend the three-day seminars. Moreover, the complaint said, “no specific Donald Trump techniques or strategies were taught during the seminars, Donald Trump ‘never’ reviewed any of Trump University’s curricula or programming materials, nor did he review any of the content for the free seminars or the three day seminars.” So what were the attendees taught? According to the complaint, “the contents and material presented by Trump University were developed in large part by a third-party company that creates and develops materials for an array of motivational speakers and Seminar and timeshare rental companies.” The closest that the attendees at the seminars got to Trump was when they were encouraged to have their picture taken with a life-size photo of him.
The alleged scam didn’t stop there. Trump University instructors told people who attended the three-day seminars that this wasn’t enough time to learn how to succeed, and encouraged them to purchase additional “mentorship” programs, which cost up to thirty-five thousand dollars. The complaint explained,
This bait and switch was laid out in the Trump University Playbook (“Playbook”), which provided step-to-step directions to Trump University instructors on what to tell students during the seminars. . . . Trump University instructors and staff were given detailed guidance as to how to build rapport and approach consumers one-on-one to encourage further purchases. Trump University representatives were explicitly instructed to push the highest priced Elite programs. Even when students hesitated to purchase the expensive programs, Trump representatives were provided stock responses to encourage purchases, including encouraging students to go into debt to pay for the Elite programs.The newly released documents, which included actual Trump University playbooks (one was also uncovered by Politico earlier this year), provide more detail about the sales tactics that its employees used. Some of these methods, such as encouraging customers to max out their credit cards and playing psychological tricks on them, are familiar from the world of time-shares and other dodgy industries. “If they can afford the gold elite don’t allow them to think about doing anything besides the gold elite,” one of the playbooks advised the sales staff. At another point, the manual said, “Don’t ask people what they think about something you’ve said. Instead, always ask them how they feel about it. People buy emotionally and justify it logically.”
One of Schnackenberg’s contributions, in his testimony, was to illustrate how these tactics worked with individuals. Recounting his experience with one couple, which included a man who was on disability, he said, “After the hard-sell sales presentation, they were considering purchasing the $35,000 Elite program. I did not feel it was an appropriate program for them because of their precarious financial condition.” Far from being commended by his bosses for his honesty, Schnackenberg said that he was reprimanded. Another salesperson then “talked them into buying the $35,000 program after I refused to sell this program to them,” he testified. “I was disgusted by this conduct and decided to resign.”
Trump denies any wrongdoing. Citing surveys that he claims show that Trump University got high approval ratings from its customers, he has set up a Web site at 98percentapproval.com, which features testimonials from Trump University attendees and attacks on the Attorney General. Trump’s lawyers also told the Times that other testimony in the California case had discredited the charges made by former employees. Hope Hicks, Trump’s campaign spokesperson, said that he was looking forward to his day in court.
So far, though, Trump has failed in his efforts to have the lawsuits in California and New York thrown out. And, whatever happens to the legal cases, the allegations will dog him all the way to November. On Wednesday, Hillary Clinton offered a preview of what is to come, calling Trump a “fraud” who is “trying to scam America the way he scammed all those people at Trump University.”
The Clinton campaign is clearly hoping that Trump University will be to Trump as Bain Capital was to Mitt Romney—a way to portray him as just another selfish rich guy who is out to profit at the expense of ordinary folk. Commenting on Twitter, Clinton’s press secretary, Brian Fallon, wrote, “Trump U is devastating because it’s metaphor for his whole campaign: promising hardworking Americans way to get ahead, but all based on lies.”
So will Trump University be the thing that brings Trump down? In a post for The New Republic, Brian Beutler argued that it will be “devastating” to him. On my Twitter feed, some people reacted more skeptically, pointing out that many of Trump’s supporters appear oblivious to any criticisms of him, and that Clinton isn’t necessarily the ideal prosecutor. It is also worth recalling that, in Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, another populist businessman, served as Prime Minister four times despite a list of allegations against him that included bribery, tax evasion, sexual misconduct, and having ties to the mafia.
One thing is clear, though. If the revelations about Trump University don’t do any damage to Trump, it’s time to worry—or worry even more—about American democracy.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... raising the question of just what it would take for them to disavow a candidate who has done anything but moderate his positions ..." These people are shameless.
...................................................................................................................................................................
These Republican Leaders Support Trump, Believe He Will Violate The Constitution And Incite Violence
By Aaron Rupar, June 3, 2016
Embroiled in a tough reelection fight, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) worries presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump would overstep the chief executives’s legal bounds if elected president. Along similar lines, Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) is concerned Trump’s proposed Muslim ban violates the constitution. And Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC) warns that Trump’s divisive rhetoric could lead to more violent incidents like the racially motivated mass shooting at a Charleston church that claimed nine lives.
Yet despite those concerns, all three have pledged to support Trump, raising the question of just what it would take for them to disavow a candidate who has done anything but moderate his positions since locking up the Republican nomination.
In an interview with the New York Times, McCain suggested Trump will seek to exceed his authority under the Constitution, but said he’s hopeful that Congress might be able to keep him in check.
“I still believe we have the institutions of government that would restrain someone who seeks to exceed their constitutional obligations,” McCain said. “We have a Congress. We have the Supreme Court. We’re not Romania.”
McCain went on to single out the press as one institution that is "still strong enough" to keep Trump in line. But Trump has said he wants to weaken the First Amendment by making it more easy to sue media outlets.
During an Friday morning appearance on MSNBC, Cole said he supports House Speaker Paul Ryan's decision to endorse Trump. MSNBC political analyst Mark Halperin then asked him if there's anything about Trump he'd change.
"If I had to pick a particular position that would concern me the most, it would be the ban on Muslims," Cole replied. "I think it's clearly, you know, unconstitutional, it's ill-advised, it would really hurt the United States. We need a lot of Muslim friends to deal with what we're dealing with overseas, and we have some great Muslim friends."
Haley, meanwhile, expressed concern about Trump's rhetoric and its possible violent implications during a Thursday interview with the Associated Press.
"I know what that rhetoric can do. I saw it happen," Haley said, referring to the mass shooting allegedly perpetrated last summer by 22-year-old Confederate sympathizer Dylann Roof. "The way [Trump] communicates that, I wish were different," she said.
On Thursday, House Speaker Ryan officially endorsed Trump just hours after he promised an interfaith peace organization he's committed to speaking out against Islamophobia. Some analysts have interpreted Ryan's endorsement as marking the end of the stillborn "Never Trump" movement.
...................................................................................................................................................................
These Republican Leaders Support Trump, Believe He Will Violate The Constitution And Incite Violence
By Aaron Rupar, June 3, 2016
Embroiled in a tough reelection fight, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) worries presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump would overstep the chief executives’s legal bounds if elected president. Along similar lines, Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) is concerned Trump’s proposed Muslim ban violates the constitution. And Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC) warns that Trump’s divisive rhetoric could lead to more violent incidents like the racially motivated mass shooting at a Charleston church that claimed nine lives.
Yet despite those concerns, all three have pledged to support Trump, raising the question of just what it would take for them to disavow a candidate who has done anything but moderate his positions since locking up the Republican nomination.
In an interview with the New York Times, McCain suggested Trump will seek to exceed his authority under the Constitution, but said he’s hopeful that Congress might be able to keep him in check.
“I still believe we have the institutions of government that would restrain someone who seeks to exceed their constitutional obligations,” McCain said. “We have a Congress. We have the Supreme Court. We’re not Romania.”
McCain went on to single out the press as one institution that is "still strong enough" to keep Trump in line. But Trump has said he wants to weaken the First Amendment by making it more easy to sue media outlets.
During an Friday morning appearance on MSNBC, Cole said he supports House Speaker Paul Ryan's decision to endorse Trump. MSNBC political analyst Mark Halperin then asked him if there's anything about Trump he'd change.
"If I had to pick a particular position that would concern me the most, it would be the ban on Muslims," Cole replied. "I think it's clearly, you know, unconstitutional, it's ill-advised, it would really hurt the United States. We need a lot of Muslim friends to deal with what we're dealing with overseas, and we have some great Muslim friends."
Haley, meanwhile, expressed concern about Trump's rhetoric and its possible violent implications during a Thursday interview with the Associated Press.
"I know what that rhetoric can do. I saw it happen," Haley said, referring to the mass shooting allegedly perpetrated last summer by 22-year-old Confederate sympathizer Dylann Roof. "The way [Trump] communicates that, I wish were different," she said.
On Thursday, House Speaker Ryan officially endorsed Trump just hours after he promised an interfaith peace organization he's committed to speaking out against Islamophobia. Some analysts have interpreted Ryan's endorsement as marking the end of the stillborn "Never Trump" movement.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)