Trump!!!

I would never trust an all aggy jury ether
How could you?
Even just two of them on a jury
Two of them anywhere for that matter
 
Whomever created that fake also misspelled Indiana.

After reading the document more carefully, I realized that it is (or at least seems to be) some sort of registration card for Francisca Rodriguez Curiel, who appears to be the judge's mother. Thus, the birthdate listed on the document must be 1916. I'm not sure what she is registering for.
 
Graham is evidently a moron who does not even know what "love of country" means. IMO loving the US = hating Hillary as she has done way more to damage the national security of the US in her time as SoS than Trump can even think of. Hillary doesn't love her country, why should the voters?

Duly noted that your hate for Hillary transcends all.
 
Romney New Jersey votes: 185,000
Trump New Jersey votes: 351,000
It looks like Trump will break the record for primary votes. Dont have full, final numbers yet though


Ckcx6QcVAAA6msr.jpg
 

And STILL Trump had the lowest percentage of overall vote count (42%) since 1960 heading into the Tuesdays primaries. The Republicans have had an epic turnout in their primaries as have the Democrats. We all may be more partisan but it seems we are participating in primaries more than ever before.
 
Last edited:
Tools liberal have taught you? Did you type that with a straight face?

I'm more interest in the recognition that both sides are cut from the same cloth. The tactics and strategy of the Repubs and Democrats, and the extremes of both sides have a common goal in mind: win. Neither side is "better" than the other and both rationalize their mud wallowing while chastising the other side for doing the same.
My theory is that Dems are upset that Trump is beating them with their own playbook.
 
My theory is that Dems are upset that Trump is beating them with their own playbook.
You give Trump too little credit. He's using a brand new playbook.
No one has tried to run for president talking in an 8th grade vocabulary. It's an amazingly effective, good idea. Most candidate work hard to sound well-educated. Trump, with a good education, is speaking reality-TV, common man language. Honestly, the tough-guy trash talking most of my friends abandoned soon after 8th grade is much more effective than I would have imagined with a broad political audience.
 
You give Trump too little credit. He's using a brand new playbook.
No one has tried to run for president talking in an 8th grade vocabulary. It's an amazingly effective, good idea. Most candidate work hard to sound well-educated. Trump, with a good education, is speaking reality-TV, common man language. Honestly, the tough-guy trash talking most of my friends abandoned soon after 8th grade is much more effective than I would have imagined with a broad political audience.

The fear from the right is that it won't be as appealing in the General election. Notice Trump used teleprompters for his speech yesterday which was glaringly unnatural to him. Multiple times his campaign has stated they would pivot to being more "presidential". Let's see if it sticks this time.
 
For professional organizations, yes. I would never belong to the Christian Engineering Organization (if it ever existed).

I appreciate the consistency. Can I assume you have issues with groups that promote women in technology? I don't personally have a problem with Curiel being involved in a group that promotes Latinos in law. I'm assuming Latinos are underrepresented in the law field.
 
I'm assuming Latinos are underrepresented in the law field.

According to this 2012 article in the California Bar Journal:

In 1991, 3 percent of the state’s lawyers were Latino, 3.7 percent in 2001 and 4.2 percent today. Latinos make up 37.6 percent of California’s population.
So yes, Hispanics are underrepresented in the California bar.

I don't personally have a problem with Curiel being involved in a group that promotes Latinos in law.

+1. I feel the same way about any "URM-lawyer" group. If Jews were an URM in the law (I'm pretty sure we aren't :smile1:), I'd be the first to sign up with a "Jewish lawyer" organization.
 
And STILL Trump had the lowest percentage of overall vote count (42%) since 1960 heading into the Tuesdays primaries.

I'm actually impressed with the 42% considering he was running against 16 other candidates. Husk, just try to be honest about the numbers you throw up there knowing dang well you were putting up fuzzy math. Kind of like any libs throwing out how great the unemployment rate is right now knowing the participation rate is at it's worst since the Jimmy Carter era.
 
If Jews were an URM in the law (I'm pretty sure we aren't :smile1:), I'd be the first to sign up with a "Jewish lawyer" organization.

It wouldn't surprise me if they're underrepresented in some areas of the country. Obviously not New Jersey or New York.
 
I'm actually impressed with the 42% considering he was running against 16 other candidates. Husk, just try to be honest about the numbers you throw up there knowing dang well you were putting up fuzzy math.

Fuzzy math? Nope, just statistics. What do they say...lies, damn lies and statistics. 42% is no more or less valid than the total vote count in projecting an aura of support for Trump. It says that 58% of those who voted leading into Tuesday's primary preferred someone other than Trump in the GOP primary. Oh...that total vote count also doesn't take into account caucuses.
 
Speaking of fuzzy math. The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced for May that only 38,000 new jobs were created, but had a decline in unemployment 0.3% that has it at 4.7%. That's a huge non-participation rate to pull that off. Or the non-participation rate and also a correction with their figures after the election is over in Nov just like in 2012.
 
Speaking of fuzzy math. The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced for May that only 38,000 new jobs were created, but had a decline in unemployment 0.3% that has it at 4.7%. That's a huge non-participation rate to pull that off. Or the non-participation rate and also a correction with their figures after the election is over in Nov just like in 2012.

The economy is crappy, and we shouldn't accept that as the new normal. It was a golden opportunity for the GOP to offer a strong economic conservative alternative who could have shuffled the electoral map, and instead it offered a joke. Sad.
 
...... The Republicans have had an epic turnout in their primaries as have the Democrats. ......

Looks like 7M down (rather than the 8M as mentioned above). In whose world is this an "epic turnout?"

Hillary received 15,899,116 votes this year.
In 2008, she got 17,493,836 primary votes.
So HRC received 1,594,720 less primary votes this year than in 2008.
And she lost in 2008. By a wide margin.

Bernie got 12,193,152 votes.
Together they received 28,092,268 total primary votes.
In 2008, Dems cast 35,029,294+ in their primary.
So the Ds have lost ~7M primary votes vs. 2008.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html
 
Last edited:
After watching Trump make fun of the handicapped reporter and listening to his muslim position, I and the Koch brothers would have paid good money to see Muhammad Ali teach Donald Trump some American core values.

I'm not in HR, but I'm pretty sure you get fired for saying what he said. Trump is running for the job of President, but he wouldn't make it through a job interview if he said that at the company I work for. Or yours.
 
After watching Trump make fun of the handicapped reporter and listening to his muslim position, I and the Koch brothers would have paid good money to see Muhammad Ali teach Donald Trump some American core values.

I'm not in HR, but I'm pretty sure you get fired for saying what he said. Trump is running for the job of President, but he wouldn't make it through a job interview if he said that at the company I work for. Or yours.

That's the remarkable thing. People are voting for a guy who says crap they'd never tolerate from their own employees or their own children. They confuse being politically incorrect with being an *******.
 
That's the remarkable thing. People are voting for a guy who says crap they'd never tolerate from their own employees or their own children. They confuse being politically incorrect with being an *******.
And other presidents weren't? LBJ walked around the Oval Office exposing himself. JFK abused his authority by having sex with an intern, Clinton is a rapist. They all are egomaniacs.
 
And other presidents weren't? LBJ walked around the Oval Office exposing himself. JFK abused his authority by having sex with an intern, Clinton is a rapist. They all are egomaniacs.

Two big differences. First, conservatives generally don't hold up LBJ, JFK, and and Bill Clinton as being men of character and certainly don't view them as conservative standard bearers deserving of emulation.

Second, even those guys had some degree of decorum and discretion. LBJ didn't whip it out or take a crap in public. JFK didn't bang his intern in the Rose Garden. Bill Clinton didn't rape anybody or get his knob polished in the middle of the street. As sleazy as they were, they at least behaved like gentlemen in public. Accordingly, the people chose them under the assumption that they were decent men. The shortsighted morons who are voting for Trump now are aware of his issues and choose him anyway. That's much worse.
 
Last edited:
Not that Trumpsters will care, but the Trump nomination will have repercussions beyond 2016. It's scary. Link.
I am not sure this is a bad thing long term for the Republican Party. It needs to be destroyed and the rising stars, other than Tim Scott, are not necessarily stars in my view - especially Ryan.

The real harm is to the United States in general. The SC appointees by Clinton will put us over the edge.
 
I and the Koch brothers would have paid good money to see Muhammad Ali teach Donald Trump some American core values.

Trump has no humility, says slightly racist things and hurls offensive insults at his opponents.... He seems to be following Ali's example.

Honestly, maybe I am too young, but I cannot figure out why Trump's arrogance and insults are frowned upon and Ali's are praised for "telling it like it is."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...d85198-2b46-11e6-9de3-6e6e7a14000c_story.html

"First, he was not a civil rights advocate or activist. The Nation of Islam, which Ali joined in 1964, was, if anything, against the civil rights movement and, as a separatist group, opposed to racial integration. The Nation also thought that whites were unnatural beings, while its millennialist bent made members feel superior to civil rights activists.

In fact, the Nation of Islam was criticized by these activists for its lack of participation in the movement. Do not mistake Ali’s outspoken denunciation of racial injustice as activism. That was his defense of the orthodoxy of his religion."

Also on Joe Fraizer, "In the lead-up to the Manila fight as well as each of their other two encounters, Ali verbally abused Frazier. Ali nicknamed Frazier "The Gorilla", and used this as the basis for the rhyme, "It will be a killa and a thrilla and a chilla when I get the Gorilla in Manila,"

Im no Trump supporter, I just find it damned odd Ali is supposed to teach Trump not to be arrogant and stop hurling insults?
 
Last edited:

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC

Recent Threads

Back
Top