More on Trump University

a last ditch effort to slow Trump

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/us/donald-trump-marco-rubio-trump-university.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Feducation&action=click&contentCollection=education&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

 

There is nothing that can slow him down. His supporters will support him regardless. He was just on TV refusing to disavow endorsements from David Duke and white supremacist groups because he claims to know nothing about them. He wouldn't even say that he disavowed the support of the KKK. Everyone knows what the KKK is, and how can a presidential candidate who claims to be well-educated not know anything about David Duke? He does know about David Duke. Gawker was able to find negative comments he made about David Duke, the KKK, and Neo-Nazis to the New York Times in 2000. Either he's extremely senile, doesn't want to lose the support of white supremacists, or this is performance art or a practical joke.

 

I don't know what it means to "slow him down." He is what he is. I do not think he's necessarily gaining appeal; he's a pretty well-known entity at this point.

There are limits to anyone's appeal. I don't know if we've found his yet, but it's there somewhere. I think might be enough to garner him the nomination, if (and this is a big "if") he can win a majority of delegates prior to the convention. If it goes to a floor vote, the GOP will find a way to broker a deal and dump him.

 

Now he is playing the vicitim

He wants a Hispanic judge to recuse himself. Can you believe this guy?

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trump-plays-the-victim-card-against-hispanic-judge-190435760.html

 

This could be, and I am thinking an understatement, a very interesting GOP convention..

 

With the Democrats very soon to get behind one candidate (sorry, Bern), the GOP would be wise to do the same. I don't think any of the GOP candidates can beat Clinton--assuming the e-mail thingy doesn't explode in her face. But the GOP candidate who emerges would be able to put up a better fight if the party got behind him sooner rather than later. And if it goes to the convention? No hope there; it will be too late. Only a very damaged candidate will emerge from that process.

As mad as I am at the DNC for rigging the game for Clinton (I'm looking at you, DW-S), at least it serves to leave Clinton relatively untouched by "friendlies" as she prepares to engage the GOP's nominee in the general election. The GOP nominee will not enjoy a similar condition.

 

Some more stuff

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/29/a-trio-of-truthful-attack-ads-about-trump-university/

Donald Trump Says Hispanic Judge in Trump University Suit "Has Been Extremely Hostile to Me"

Trump: Judge's Ethnicity Matters in Trump University Suit - ABC News

If Trump Runs America Like Trump University, He Lies

 

Clinton was treated with kid gloves. Bern should have had it no probs. The email thing will blow up on her. Obama and her are not friends, if she does not get charged and it goes away there will be big problems at the FBI.

 

This guy has it already (nomination) and is untouchable, those jokes Cruz and Marco are just burning money that was donated and will keep doing so till they have to stop. I laugh at all of you guys that don't get it yet. This stuff only makes him stronger, its like he absorbs it and grows stronger. The more people bash him the more his supporters dig in and fight for him. He is a F you vote. After the way my boy Sanders was treated I will be voting for Trump.

 

I agree - the superdelegates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016) are already lined up for Clinton. In my opinion they should only declare their vote at the convention in case of a tie.

 

Bernie Sanders is lucky he's done this well. His ideas aren't exactly in the mainstream, and it's been known for a long time that he would do poorly in the South due to lack of support from black voters. What's going on with Donald Trump is a cult of personality. I can't think of any other reason why so many people would vote for someone who only spouts nonsense. Or, maybe white nationalists are taking over the Republican Party. Their robocalls didn't seem to hurt him on Super Tuesday.

 

NY Attorney General authorizes fraud charge

The Fraud Cases Against Trump University Are Gaining Steam | ThinkProgress

 

But there are other countries where that isn't the case and where the social policies are comparable. Iceland, for example, has incredibly low unemployment and a strong social structure.

The biggest issue that people tend to ignore is that the impact of policies is determined by more than the policy itself. Iceland is a small nation. A very small nation. A policy it institutes effects fewer people, fewer organizations and the likelihood of causing the nation to turn on a dime is much greater.

The U.S. is enormous. And our concept of state sovereignty is unparalleled in the world. A national policy, as in the case of Obamacare, simply won't roll out in a uniform fashion. States will resist. States will sue. States will pass conflicting legislation and bank on the feds never taking it to court (or using the opportunity to paint it as federal overreach). That simply doesn't happen in most of Europe. In some countries, the idea that a state/province/canton could just flat out ignore a federal law and do its own thing wouldn't just be unheard of, it would result in people going to prison for sedition.

So we're in a very different boat. And Sanders's policies themselves aren't necessarily good or bad. The question we should be asking is whether they can effectively be implemented in a nation that is so large and fractured that we can hardly agree on the basics presently on our plate without adding education to the mix.

Consider that Massachusetts led the charge in universal healthcare. Before Obama took office, there was MA ensuring that its citizens had coverage. The power to do that lies in every state legislature. Congress simply doesn't have the authority to impose that system on the states. Instead, it relies on a delicate balance of dangling federal dollars before the states and hoping that they comply.

If Bernie Sanders were running for governor, I'd say he had some good policies that, at the state level, had a shot at success. If Vermont decided to make college free for all state residents and found a way to fund that, why not? But the idea that a single president, without the support of the majority of congress, is going to force Mississippi to do the same thing as Maine is naive, at best.

 

The second part of my post was about Donald Trump. Sanders' plans might be unrealistic due to the political makeup of Congress and the size of this country, but at least he has plans. Donald Trump just spews utter nonsense like making Mexico pay to build a wall and making America great again with no plan to make it great again other than having his clothing line made in China, going bankrupt four times, and having undocumented immigrants work for his companies.

 

picky picky picky

:chairfall:

 

With all the manufactured hysteria with the David Duke endorsement, there's one big problem; Duke has never endorsed Donald Trump, and made that unequivocally clear the other night on CNN.

It's also very interesting that no one seems to be offended that Hillary Clinton effusively praised Robert Byrd, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan who she called a "mentor";

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryweuBVJMEA

Just another example of the breathtaking hypocrisy of liberal Democrats.

 

I don't really have an opinion on the Trump/David Duke issue. Accordingly, I don't have an opinion on the Clinton/Byrd issue.

However, I think it slightly disingenuous to compare the two situations as if it were truly apples to apples.

David Duke is an unapologetic racist who, to this day, makes his living by peddling his smut to white supremacists around the globe. He's been kicked out of a number of countries and his doctorate comes from a school known for its antisemitic leanings.

Robert Byrd was most certainly a KKK leader. And he also, in later life, spoke out strongly about how he was wrong to get involved with the KKK, stated "Intolerance has no place in America" and acknowledged that he apologized countless times for his past actions and had no problem in apologizing some more since he couldn't erase the sins of his past.

So, let's set Hillary and Trump aside for a moment. Because, honestly, you either love or hate either of them. And no one is going to sway a believer in one into the camp of the other. But let's look at the two people who are causing the issue itself; can you really say that Robert Byrd is equally as controversial as David Duke?

Consider, if nothing else, that Robert Byrd did a lot of other things beside being a racist. David Duke has not. It's entirely possible for a starry eyed intern (not that I'm saying Hillary every fit that bill) may have admired and appreciated Robert Byrd's congressional service and manner of diplomacy without knowing, or particularly caring about his views on race.

It would be impossible to know David Duke as anything other than a racist and a convicted felon. He's a professional racist. That's how he pays his bills. But for a very brief term of service in the Louisiana State legislature, he has not had a job that didn't directly revolve around something other than racism. And, perhaps worse, he's completely unrepentant in his racism and holds onto it to this day.

Now, with that out of the way, David Duke didn't endorse Trump. And I think it silly to hold Trump accountable for anything David Duke says. There is plenty to disagree with Trump about. This seems, to me at least, a silly thing to focus on. But it's equally silly to try to sling the same nonsensical argument at Hillary rather than properly dismantling the Trump argument in the first place.

 

First of all, most of the controversy is about Donald Trump pretending to not know much about David Duke even though he had disavowed his support a couple of days before and spoke out about him years ago. The other part of the controversy was him not disavowing the support of white supremacist groups because he apparently knows nothing about them, and he does have endorsements from white supremacist groups. Second of all, while David Duke never officially endorsed Donald Trump for president, he expressed strong support for his candidacy.

Neuhaus pretty much said what I would have said about the Robert Byrd thing.