Donald Trump: The Softening.

[digitusmedius]

There he is, Trumpsters: The Soft One. He's gone completely limp on you. Campaignus Interruptus. If you want to see a precision surgical evisceration of what he calls a "mega flip-flop" go here and scroll down to the Charlie Sykes interview clip. It's only 50 sec long but it will be a painful 50 sec.

The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC

 

[TheGoverness]

There he is, Trumpsters: The Soft One. He's gone completely limp on you. Campaignus Interruptus. Let's let Charlie Sykes 'splain it for you:


[video]<iframe src='http://player.theplatform.com/p/7wvmTC/MSNBCEmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_lw_amicro_flyingmonkey s_160823' height='500' width='635' scrolling='no' border='no' ></iframe>[/video]

I'm getting this message:

Sorry, the page you have requested cannot be found.

You can try a search if you are looking for something specific.

 

[blaxshep]

They whine when he's not PC and they make fun of him when he is. All the while buying into Hillary, a known and proven corrupt liar. All I can do is shake my head.

 

[digitusmedius]

They whine when he's not PC and they make fun of him when he is. All the while buying into Hillary, a known and proven corrupt liar. All I can do is shake my head.

Well, is that what you wanted: a guy who now changes directions with every breeze?

 

[digitusmedius]

I'm getting this message:

Sorry. I was trying to embed the video and it wouldn't. You saw the original link before I edited it. The new link will take you to the show's site and you can find his interview with Sykes there.

 

[blaxshep]

Well, is that what you wanted: a guy who now changes directions with every breeze?

What I wanted? I wanted a conservative candidate that will honor the constitution, I wanted a decent candidate to vote for, .... on either side. I could have voted for Bernie. ... but Hillary no ****ing way.

In any case flip flopping is SOP for candidates they all do it.

 

[digitusmedius]

What I wanted? I wanted a conservative candidate that will honor the constitution, I wanted a decent candidate to vote for, .... on either side. I could have voted for Bernie. ... but Hillary no ****ing way.

In any case flip flopping is SOP for candidates they all do it.

I'm always amused when people who hardly know what's in or not in the constitution talk about "adhering strictly" or "honoring" (what the hell does that even mean?) it. The SCOTUS determines what the Constitution means, not the President (and definitely not some guy in his barcalounger out in suburbia). If a President or any other elected body or official does something that violates the Constitution there's a process for determining that.

 

[blaxshep]

I'm always amused when people who hardly know what's in or not in the constitution talk about "adhering strictly" or "honoring" (what the hell does that even mean?) it. The SCOTUS determines what the Constitution means, not the President (and definitely not some guy in his barcalounger out in suburbia). If a President or any other elected body or official does something that violates the Constitution there's a process for determining that.

Thanks for showing you have no idea what you're talking about.

I think its far more likely that you a progressive hate the constitution and approve of all the violations.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I'm always amused when people who hardly know what's in or not in the constitution talk about "adhering strictly" or "honoring" (what the hell does that even mean?) it. The SCOTUS determines what the Constitution means, not the President (and definitely not some guy in his barcalounger out in suburbia). If a President or any other elected body or official does something that violates the Constitution there's a process for determining that.

There is supposed to be. But we have a progressive court system and a largely progressive Congress and a totally progressive President who don't seem to care what the Constitution says. They just assume it is okay to go by what they think the Constitution should say.

On the other hand, some of us don't dictate to a person how he/she should conduct his/her campaign but go with the perceived core of a person as demonstrated in their track record. We allow people to change their minds when presented with new information. We allow people to think out loud when working out a problem. We don't appreciate those who use us and the system to increase their personal power, influence, and personal wealth.

So for those of us we will take an imperfect Donald Trump who has the instincts and motives to actually make a positive difference for the good of all but the permanent political class over a Hillary Clinton who, along with a number of people in both parties of Congress and others connected to government, IS the permanent political class.

 

[digitusmedius]

Thanks for showing you have no idea what you're talking about.

I think its far more likely that you a progressive hate the constitution and approve of all the violations.

Why don't you give us an even bigger laugh and list the "violations" you imagine have been committed?

 

[digitusmedius]

There is supposed to be. But we have a progressive court system and a largely progressive Congress and a totally progressive President who don't seem to care what the Constitution says. They just assume it is okay to go by what they think the Constitution should say.

On the other hand, some of us don't dictate to a person how he/she should conduct his/her campaign but go with the perceived core of a person as demonstrated in their track record. We allow people to change their minds when presented with new information. We allow people to think out loud when working out a problem. We don't appreciate those who use us and the system to increase their personal power, influence, and personal wealth.

So for those of us we will take an imperfect Donald Trump who has the instincts and motives to actually make a positive difference for the good of all but the permanent political class over a Hillary Clinton who, along with a number of people in both parties of Congress and others connected to government, IS the permanent political class.

So, you're in that political element of the country which thinks you know what constitutional or not--based on your particularly political ideology-- and damn what the courts decide. This is where I like to invite people like you to offer up examples of what you believe to be judicial rulings that violate what you believe the Constitution says. Hilarity is almost certain to follow.

 

[blaxshep]

Why don't you give us an even bigger laugh and list the "violations" you imagine have been committed?

I would but you will just deny it so what is the point.

 

[AlbqOwl]

So, you're in that political element of the country which thinks you know what constitutional or not--based on your particularly political ideology-- and damn what the courts decide. This is where I like to invite people like you to offer up examples of what you believe to be judicial rulings that violate what you believe the Constitution says. Hilarity is almost certain to follow.

One example:

When the courts rule that an illegal alien cannot be deported when the law clearly states that the illegal person will be deported, that is the court violating its constitutional responsibility.

Now which of the two presidential candidates likely to win the November election is more likely to take the constitutional point of view on that? I'm thinking it won't be Hillary.

 

[blaxshep]

Every time I see this thread I think it has something to do with Trump and Viagra. :lamo

 

[MaggieD]

Well, is that what you wanted: a guy who now changes directions with every breeze?

So the alternative being a candidate/president/ANYONE who never learns and changes? You don't like Trump? Fine. We get it. You wAnt to make fun of him on this site?? Fine as well.

It tells us MUCH more about you than you can imagine.

 

[digitusmedius]

One example:

When the courts rule that an illegal alien cannot be deported when the law clearly states that the illegal person will be deported, that is the court violating its constitutional responsibility.

Now which of the two presidential candidates likely to win the November election is more likely to take the constitutional point of view on that? I'm thinking it won't be Hillary.

This is what I mean by hilarity. It's hilarious that you can "cite" a court case without giving either a reference to it or offering up any details of the case and then pretend you've "scored" on the subject. Get specific or move on.

 

[blaxshep]

This is what I mean by hilarity. It's hilarious that you can "cite" a court case without giving either a reference to it or offering up any details of the case and then pretend you've "scored" on the subject. Get specific or move on.

Would there be any point in it, if anyone sights a specific case where the SC violated the constitution you would just say something like "You think you know the constitution better than the SC?" Debating you on this would be as fruitless and debating the origin of species with a Christian.

 

[AlbqOwl]

This is what I mean by hilarity. It's hilarious that you can "cite" a court case without giving either a reference to it or offering up any details of the case and then pretend you've "scored" on the subject. Get specific or move on.

That's as specific as I need to be I think. You are welcome to move on.

But if you would like to educate yourself on the subject, here is one example: Judges nixed DHS bids to deport illegal immigrants 100,000 times: report | Fox News

 

[Fiddytree]

Never trust a demagogue. A lot of conservatives may critique him for showing his "liberal colors," but many minorities aren't going to critique Trump for his liberalism, but his strident attacks on minorities of almost all stripes.

Minorities should not have to pray that Trump won't go after them because it doesn't poll well with his crowd or if at the moment he can't get anything with it done.

 

[digitusmedius]

So the alternative being a candidate/president/ANYONE who never learns and changes? You don't like Trump? Fine. We get it. You wAnt to make fun of him on this site?? Fine as well.

It tells us MUCH more about you than you can imagine.

Oh, c'mon. You can't really be that naive or gullible. The only thing Trump may be "learning" (and I use that word guardedly) is that if he doesn't change his rhetoric he's going to get his ass stomped in November. He's now reduced his "they all gotta go" to "well, maybe it's too hard for some and maybe amnesty and maybe dreamers." I recommend you try to find the video of the "town hall" mess he did yesterday with his media stooge, Hannity, yesterday. If you can't see the desperate moves of a politician whose waffling back and forth with nearly every other sentence then you are a pure Trump worshiper and don't care what he says or means. Fergawdsakes, even Ann Coulter, up to now his most slavish devotee (so much so that she released a book of adoration yesterday) began burning him on Twitter (on the same day!!!) for it.

 

[digitusmedius]

Would there be any point in it, if anyone sights a specific case where the SC violated the constitution you would just say something like "You think you know the constitution better than the SC?" Debating you on this would be as fruitless and debating the origin of species with a Christian.

You've just admitted you can't hold your own in a discussion on the facts of a case.

 

[d0gbreath]

I would but you will just deny it so what is the point.

Commas Mother****er! Can you use them?

 

[digitusmedius]

That's as specific as I need to be I think. You are welcome to move on.

But if you would like to educate yourself on the subject, here is one example: Judges nixed DHS bids to deport illegal immigrants 100,000 times: report | Fox News

Okay, a link. It's a start but hardly a pristine legal article (why always Fox, fercrissakes?). I had to sift through the BS of a FoxNews online (even more fact-free than on TV) to try to get some facts but at least this is a start. I wonder if you just read the headline or the entire story because this comes about half way into it:

There are a number of reasons why an individual may be allowed to remain in the country, according to TRAC.

“… the judge can find that the government did not meet its burden to show the individual was deportable,” the report stated. “Or, the judge may have found that the individual was entitled to asylum in this country, or may grant relief from removal under other provisions of the law.

“A person also may be allowed to remain because the government requests that the case be administratively closed through the exercise of ICE's prosecutorial discretion, or for some other reason,” the report also stated.

Other than that one fairly brief inclusion of some facts, the rest of the piece is some guy's opinion about the process.

Like it or not, everyone--citizen or not--in this country is entitled to due process, a guarantee of the Constitution which you claim this article is shows it being skirted. So tell me how this example ignores, defies, "dishonors" or in any way violates any constitutional principle.

And just for the record, deportations over the past 8 years, Obama has the dubious honor of all time high deportation numbers:U.S. deportations of immigrants reach record high in 2013 | Pew Research Center

 

[digitusmedius]

Every time I see this thread I think it has something to do with Trump and Viagra. :lamo

Now that's funny.

 

[digitusmedius]

That's as specific as I need to be I think. You are welcome to move on.

But if you would like to educate yourself on the subject, here is one example: Judges nixed DHS bids to deport illegal immigrants 100,000 times: report | Fox News

Can we get back to the Constitution, which you claimed is being "violated" wholesale by the courts? I responded to that link which really didn't have anything to do with a constitutional case (unless there's one pending that is challenging these immigration court rulings--but you didn't cite one). If you're going to claim there are all these violations, don't you feel the slightest obligation to actually come up with one? Judging by your first sentence up there and the fact you didn't cite one, I guess the answer is no until proven otherwise. (BTW, I started this thread so if there's any moving on to do, you'd be the one to do it.)