Donald Trump Presidential Campaign Thread

[Monkey1976]

Then why did he judge based on someone’s race?

He didn’t. He judged them by their membership in a racist organization.

 

[Crossbones]

He didn’t. He judged them by their membership in a racist organization.

Then why didn’t he say that isn’t of talking about him happening to be, we believe, Mexican and then going on about building a wall.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Then why did he judge based on someone’s race?

His point was that he felt he had been treated unfairly in the lawsuit. Seems his thought (and likely statement) about Judge Curiel’s ethnicity never got completed because he immediately followed it with “…which is fine”.

The Plaintiff in the Trump University lawsuit wanted to dismiss it, but Judge Curiel selected another Plaintiff to carry the lawsuit forward, and didn’t completely let the original Plaintiff out of the case even though she wanted out.

Also, Judge Curiel was asked by the Trump lawyers not to release the untested, untried one-sided statements of the plaintiffs to the public prior to trial. There’s nothing unusual about that, because it can poison a jury pool if the judge does that. Well, Judge Curiel released them to the public. He couldn’t possibly not know he was potentially poisoning the jury as well as giving the Clinton machine grist for its defamation mill. We’ll be seeing plenty of those untried allegations in the months ahead. Oh, and he supports Hillary Clinton for president.

Well, and Judge Curiel is a member of the La Raza Lawyer’s Association which raises money for scholarships for Hispanic illegal immigrants, some of the very people Trump is trying to keep out of the country. So politically, they are directly at odds when it comes to illegal immigration, and nobody could imagine otherwise.

Now, maybe Judge Curiel did not have an ethnic bias in mind at all. Maybe it was only political. But one would have to be pretty blind not to think he went political in his ruling.

Just about anybody on the receiving end of that would think so, right or wrong. Judges are supposed to avoid even the appearance of partiality. I have admitted before that in my state, judges are not supposed to engage in political acts at all or anything that even looks like it. And the reason for it is that it tends to undercut belief in the impartiality of the judiciary. And so, nobody should be surprised that Trump felt he had been dealt with in an unfair manner.

 

[Crossbones]

His point was that he felt he had been treated unfairly in the lawsuit. Seems his thought (and likely statement) about Judge Curiel’s ethnicity never got completed because he immediately followed it with “…which is fine”.

The Plaintiff in the Trump University lawsuit wanted to dismiss it, but Judge Curiel selected another Plaintiff to carry the lawsuit forward, and didn’t completely let the original Plaintiff out of the case even though she wanted out.

Also, Judge Curiel was asked by the Trump lawyers not to release the untested, untried one-sided statements of the plaintiffs to the public prior to trial. There’s nothing unusual about that, because it can poison a jury pool if the judge does that. Well, Judge Curiel released them to the public. He couldn’t possibly not know he was potentially poisoning the jury as well as giving the Clinton machine grist for its defamation mill. We’ll be seeing plenty of those untried allegations in the months ahead. Oh, and he supports Hillary Clinton for president.

Well, and Judge Curiel is a member of the La Raza Lawyer’s Association which raises money for scholarships for Hispanic illegal immigrants, some of the very people Trump is trying to keep out of the country. So politically, they are directly at odds when it comes to illegal immigration, and nobody could imagine otherwise.

Now, maybe Judge Curiel did not have an ethnic bias in mind at all. Maybe it was only political. But one would have to be pretty blind not to think he went political in his ruling.

Just about anybody on the receiving end of that would think so, right or wrong. Judges are supposed to avoid even the appearance of partiality. I have admitted before that in my state, judges are not supposed to engage in political acts at all or anything that even looks like it. And the reason for it is that it tends to undercut belief in the impartiality of the judiciary. And so, nobody should be surprised that Trump felt he had been dealt with in an unfair manner.

I am confident that Catholics can properly interpret Trump’s comments and understand them properly. I am also confident that Catholics can read documents like Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship and the comments of bishops and determine who to vote for without relying on the personal interpretations of the posters here. Of course, for lurkers and newcomers, it is worth pointing out that you have defended Trump’s racist comments, as well as his support of torture and targeting noncombatants, which may be of use when deciding how much weight to give your personal interpretation on who to vote for.

 

[Good_Tidings]

When you start sourcing your diatribes, I will, too.

 

[Good_Tidings]

I am confident that Catholics can properly interpret Trump’s comments and understand them properly. I am also confident that Catholics can read documents like Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship and the comments of bishops and determine who to vote for without relying on the personal interpretations of the posters here. Of course, for lurkers and newcomers, it is worth pointing out that you have defended Trump’s racist comments, as well as his support of torture and targeting noncombatants, which may be of use when deciding how much weight to give your personal interpretation on who to vote for.

I’m confident that Catholics will be able to figure it out, too. God, Himself, gave us free will for a reason.

 

[Good_Tidings]

His point was that he felt he had been treated unfairly in the lawsuit. Seems his thought (and likely statement) about Judge Curiel’s ethnicity never got completed because he immediately followed it with “…which is fine”.

The Plaintiff in the Trump University lawsuit wanted to dismiss it, but Judge Curiel selected another Plaintiff to carry the lawsuit forward, and didn’t completely let the original Plaintiff out of the case even though she wanted out.

Also, Judge Curiel was asked by the Trump lawyers not to release the untested, untried one-sided statements of the plaintiffs to the public prior to trial. There’s nothing unusual about that, because it can poison a jury pool if the judge does that. Well, Judge Curiel released them to the public. He couldn’t possibly not know he was potentially poisoning the jury as well as giving the Clinton machine grist for its defamation mill. We’ll be seeing plenty of those untried allegations in the months ahead. Oh, and he supports Hillary Clinton for president.

Well, and Judge Curiel is a member of the La Raza Lawyer’s Association which raises money for scholarships for Hispanic illegal immigrants, some of the very people Trump is trying to keep out of the country. So politically, they are directly at odds when it comes to illegal immigration, and nobody could imagine otherwise.

Now, maybe Judge Curiel did not have an ethnic bias in mind at all. Maybe it was only political. But one would have to be pretty blind not to think he went political in his ruling.

Just about anybody on the receiving end of that would think so, right or wrong. Judges are supposed to avoid even the appearance of partiality. I have admitted before that in my state, judges are not supposed to engage in political acts at all or anything that even looks like it. And the reason for it is that it tends to undercut belief in the impartiality of the judiciary. And so, nobody should be surprised that Trump felt he had been dealt with in an unfair manner.

I didn’t hear Trump complaining when he ruled in his favor several times. He didn’t like the last ruling…and so it began. If the judge is so unfair and “racistf” the Trump lawyers have recourse which they do not want to take for a very good reason.

 

[Little_Sheep]

usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/

This article is not good news for Mr. Trump.

He will be under the microscope like never before. I am half expecting him to bow out of the race before the GOP convention due to all of the continued scrutiny he will be facing. And of course, he’ll say he’s being treated very unfairly.

The leadership of Trump’s “own” Party loathe him. Whether they admit it or not (and plenty admit it), they’d much rather see Hillary become President and then scramble to regroup in four years.

Trump’s not going to happen. The media will continue to call it close up until the minute voters elect Clinton to be our next POTUS by a deeply comfortable (possibly humiliating) margin. MOO, of course.

 

[Darryl1958]

I’m not doing the research for you. Sorry.

The questions asked indicate a encyclopedic understanding of the subject at hand. Each of the question was made in the context of a large volume of information directing the question in the first place…

Your dismissal of the questions comes off as a little bit embarrassing.

Bazinga.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Trump’s “own” Party loathe him. Whether they admit it or not (and plenty admit it), they’d much rather see Hillary become President and then scramble to regroup in four years.

Its called “wishful” thinking?

 

[GaryTaylor]

That goes for all the Republicans, who are basically environment-hating, life-hating people, who would scrap all env regulations and make people drink and breathe poison and destroy the climate for agriculture.

How anyone can vote for any of them is totally beyond me. I just don’t understand how people can sacrifice their children and progeny. For what??

Social media, twitter rhetoric has become alarming I agree, stereotyping and basic prejudice, has led to racism etc. I think today we can even credit this lack of ethics and especially in social media to violence in this campaign, natural sequence. Something imho we all should mindful of.

Its pretty clear theres a ethical mess, just look Obama endorsed a individual under FBI investigation. A move any dictator looking to overthrow a government via radical social revolution would be proud of. See how imaginary one can be?

 

[Thorolfr]

From today’s Guardian:

After a week where Trump strained to appear more presidential, it all went out the window in a vintage performance, which even featured a handful of protesters being arrested outside the event.

The presumptive Republican nominee also returned to familiar themes with his pledge to build a wall on the Mexican border, a topic which went unmentioned in his Tuesday night victory speech after winning the last five Republican presidential primaries. Trump said of his signature initiative “it’s going to be a very beautiful wall, as beautiful as a wall can be”.

theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/11/trump-dumps-presidential-style-to-lambast-elizabeth-warren-as-pocahontas

“as beautiful as a wall can be”. The Republican candidate is such an inspiration and so poetic.

 

[lynnvinc]

I knew a wonderfully caring Presbyterian pastor yrs ago back in my hometown who was beloved by many, Presbyterians and others alike. He and the Catholic priest were best of friends. But beyond that I don’t have much experience with Presbyterianism. …

The basics are the same between Presbyterianism and Catholicism – re following Jesus, Son of God. It wasn’t all that difficult for me to convert to Catholicism as a young adult, especially after I had had a very special dream about the Eucharist.

I had wonderful Sunday school teachers who taught good Christian values. One lesson that stood out was that we people are all the same. The teacher used the metaphor of bread – we are all of the same dough, some are baked longer and are darker and some are baked shorter and lighter, but we are all the same and need to love each other without prejudice against one another.

I could never ever in a million years consider voting for Trump!

 

[Peter_J]

Disclaimer, I don’t support either candidate, but Hillary has already put out some attack ads and they are pretty effective, one particular one used all footage of Trump and his various quotes.

If I had a tv show and I could have HRC on, I’d like to give her two presents to unwrap. The first would be a gun, the second a barrel of fish.

(Of course it would be a toy gun and a barrel of gummy fish, to avoid offending people, but that’s beside the point.)

 

[GaryTaylor]

I am confident that Catholics can properly interpret Trump’s comments and understand them properly. I am also confident that Catholics can read documents like Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship and the comments of bishops and determine who to vote for without relying on the personal interpretations of the posters here. Of course, for lurkers and newcomers, it is worth pointing out that ______ have defended Trump’s racist comments, as well as his support of torture and targeting noncombatants, which may be of use when deciding how much weight to give your personal interpretation on who to vote for.

Serious? who was tortured, or died, name one person, but Democrats have defended by implicit cooperation a list of factual intrinsic evils from abortion to unjust war, to sourcing out torture to the “moderates” of Islam, to the HHS mandate against 181 Bishops, persecution of religious freedom, suppression of conscience and socialized medication. The democrats proud platform, persecuting the Little Sisters of the poor stateside and ignoring Christian persecution worldwide while suppressing them at home and intentionally creating division in the Church. But this is factual reality compared to imaginative speculation with a candidate running against the machine that intentionally makes people into monsters, when the monster itself is calling people a monster. its not very convincing, basic Twitter drama.

The Bishop had to shame Kerry by petition…

“Today, the people of God must speak up for our brothers and sisters facing genocide in the Middle East,” said a March 14 statement from Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky, U.S.C.C.B. president. “As a people of faith, we must convince the U.S. Department of State to include Christians in any formal declaration of genocide.”

So in short, by all means everyone should talk to their priest and clearly understand what the Bishop in your area is teaching.

Jesus loves you and I highly recommend lots of interaction with the area Catholic priest-Church and Bishop in communion with Rome. I would make that a priority along with reading the many times mentioned same documents. I think its fascinating Democrats suggest people not endorse by cooperation evils as they implicitly do?

 

[Peter_J]

‘Latinas for Trump’ holds its first event in Miami: ‘We don’t think he’s a racist’
.

I guess he’s qualified to be president then.

 

[GaryTaylor]

‘Latinas for Trump’ holds its first event in Miami

Hispanic vote is a natural relationship with the Republican party. Now if just ONE republican would address these peoples in a appropriate manner we could resolve this issue. It could be sooo beautiful, its a romance made in heaven, :hug3: they are all Catholic and Christian a point Democrats know all to well can’t be part of their woeful agenda.

Now if just ONE Republican and namely Donald at this moment [though the others were lacking here also] would take good advice and abandon the border rhetoric we would all be that much better off. They could build walls fences whatever, but the on-going Obama issue needs to be addressed. Migrant slaves picking fruit and dividing their families and deporting people in the middle of the night is insane let alone fast and furious and the drug-cartel issues. The border is a real problem but so is all these good Catholic Christian people and the unreal optics and rhetoric.

 

[Peter_J]

Just saw this poll.
It is the latest one from Fox News.
HRC vs Trump head to head, HRC wins by 3%, 42-39

Then they have it with Gary Johnson, HRC wins by 3%, 39-36-12

Rasmussen has HRC ahead by 4 points and Reuters has HRC ahead by 8.

realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/pres_general/

Interesting results.

I would add: from GEJ’s pov, the poll shows he has a ways to go, but he can feel optimistic about the poll showing he draws equally from each side – there’s about zero chance he could win with support from only one side.

 

[Peter_J]

Guess it takes a woman.

I heard a village say that once.

 

[mary_bobo]

Interesting results.

I would add: from GEJ’s pov, the poll shows he has a ways to go, but he can feel optimistic about the poll showing he draws equally from each side – there’s about zero chance he could win with support from only one side.

There’s zero chance he can win period.