PDA

View Full Version : Trump May be a Threat to the Constitutional Rule of Law



Arizona Bay
06-03-2016, 07:26 PM
Conservatives and Libertarians think so.

In my opinion, he will definitely be a threat.


Donald Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say

By ADAM LIPTAK (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/adam_liptak/index.html?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click)JUNE 3, 2016



WASHINGTON — Donald J. Trump’s blustery attacks on the press, complaints about the judicial system and bold claims of presidential power collectively sketch out a constitutional worldview that shows contempt for the First Amendment, the separation of powers and the rule of law, legal experts across the political spectrum say.

Even as much of the Republican political establishment lines up behind its presumptive nominee, many conservative and libertarian legal scholars warn that electing Mr. Trump is a recipe for a constitutional crisis.

“Who knows what Donald Trump with a pen and phone would do?” asked Ilya Shapiro (http://www.cato.org/people/ilya-shapiro?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click), a lawyer with the libertarian Cato Institute.

With five months to go before Election Day, Mr. Trump has already said he would “loosen” libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations. He has threatened to sic federal regulators on his critics. He has encouraged rough treatment of demonstrators. (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/us/politics/donald-trumps-heated-words-were-destined-to-stir-violence-opponents-say.html?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click)

His proposal to ba (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/07/donald-trump-calls-for-banning-muslims-from-entering-u-s/?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click)r (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/07/donald-trump-calls-for-banning-muslims-from-entering-u-s/?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click) Muslims from entry into the country (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/07/donald-trump-calls-for-banning-muslims-from-entering-u-s/?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click) tests the Constitution’s guarantees of religious freedom, due process and equal protection.

And, in what was a tipping point for some, he attacked Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the Federal District Court in San Diego (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/us/judge-orders-documents-unsealed-in-trump-university-lawsuit.html?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click), who is overseeing two class actions against Trump University.

Mr. Trump accused the judge of bias, falsely said he was Mexican and seemed to issue a threat.
“They ought to look into Judge Curiel, because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace,” Mr. Trump said. “O.K.? But we will come back in November. Wouldn’t that be wild if I am president and come back and do a civil case?”

David Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click), a retired law professor who now writes for the Volokh Conspiracy (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/29/on-donald-trump-and-the-rule-of-law/?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click), a conservative-leaning law blog, said those comments had crossed a line.

“This is how authoritarianism starts, with a president who does not respect the judiciary,” Mr. Post said. “You can criticize the judicial system, you can criticize individual cases, you can criticize individual judges. But the president has to be clear that the law is the law and that he enforces the law. That is his constitutional obligation.”

(http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/11/us/politics/where-trump-breaks-with-the-republican-party.html?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click)“If he is signaling that that is not his position, that’s a very serious constitutional problem,” Mr. Post said.

Beyond the attack on judicial independence is a broader question of Mr. Trump’s commitment to the separation of powers and to the principles of federalism enshrined in the Constitution. Randy E. Barnett (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/us/randy-barnetts-pet-cause-end-of-health-law-hits-supreme-court.html?_r=0&version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click), a law professor at Georgetown and an architect of the first major challenge to President Obama’s health care law (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-largely-stand.html?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click), said he had grave doubts on both fronts.

“You would like a president with some idea about constitutional limits on presidential powers, on congressional powers, on federal powers,” Professor Barnett said, “and I doubt he has any awareness of such limits.”

cont.

Arizona Bay
06-03-2016, 07:28 PM
cont.

Republican leaders say they are confident that Mr. Trump would respect the rule of law if elected. “He’ll have a White House counsel,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, told Hugh Hewitt, the radio host, on Monday. “There will be others who point out there’s certain things you can do and you can’t do.”

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who has become a reluctant supporter of Mr. Trump, said he did not believe that the nation would be in danger under his presidency.

“I still believe we have the institutions of government that would restrain someone who seeks to exceed their constitutional obligations,” Mr. McCain said. “We have a Congress. We have the Supreme Court. We’re not Romania.”
“Our institutions, including the press, are still strong enough to prevent” unconstitutional acts, he said.

Mr. Post said that view was too sanguine, given the executive branch’s practical primacy. “The president has all the power with respect to enforcing the law,” he said. “There’s only one of those three branches that actually has the guns in its hands, and that’s the executive.”

Republican officials have criticized Mr. Obama for what they have called his unconstitutional expansion of executive power. But some legal scholars who share that view say the problem under a President Trump would be worse.

“I don’t think he cares about separation of powers at all,” saidRichard Epstein (http://www.hoover.org/profiles/richard-epstein?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click), a fellow at the Hoover Institution who also teaches at New York University and the University of Chicago.

(http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/04/upshot/electoral-map-trump-clinton.html?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click)President George W. Bush “often went beyond what he should have done,” Professor Epstein said. “I think Obama’s been much worse on that issue pretty consistently, and his underlings have been even more so. But I think Trump doesn’t even think there’s an issue to worry about. He just simply says whatever I want to do I will do.”

Mr. Trump has boasted that he will use Mr. Obama’s actions as precedent for his own expansive assertions of executive power.

“He’s led the way, to be honest with you,” he said in January on “Meet the Press (http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-january-10-2016-n493596?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click),” referring to Mr. Obama’s program to spare millions of immigrants in the country unlawfully from deportation (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/us/politics/obamacare-unlikely-for-undocumented-immigrants.html?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click). “But I’m going to use them much better, and they’re going to serve a much better purpose than what he’s done.”

But Mr. Post said there was a difference between Mr. Obama’s view of executive power and that of Mr. Trump. “Whatever you think of Obama’s position on immigration, he is willing to submit to the courts,” he said. “There is no suggestion that he will disobey if the courts rule against him.”

Several law professors said they were less sure about Mr. Trump, citing the actions of another populist, President Andrew Jackson, who refused to enforce an 1832 Supreme Court decision (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/31/515?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click) arising from a clash between Georgia and the Cherokee Nation.

“I can easily see a situation in which he would take the Andrew Jackson line,” Professor Epstein said, referring to a probably apocryphal comment attributed to Jackson about Chief Justice John Marshall: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

There are other precedents, said John C. Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who took an expansive view of executive power as a lawyer in the Bush administration. “The only two other presidents I can think of who were so hostile to judges on an individual level and to the judiciary as a whole would be Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Roosevelt,” he said.

Both of those presidents chafed at what they saw as excessive judicial power. “But they weren’t doing it because they had cases before those judges as individuals,” Professor Yoo said. “They had legitimate separation-of-powers fights between the presidency and the judiciary. Trump is lashing out because he has a lawsuit in a private capacity, which is much more disturbing.”

Other legal scholars said they were worried about Mr. Trump’s commitment to the First Amendment. He has taken particular aim at The Washington Post and its owner, Jeff Bezos (http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/13/technology/donald-trump-jeff-bezos-amazon/?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click), the founder of Amazon.

“He owns Amazon,” Mr. Trump said in February. “He wants political influence so Amazon will benefit from it. That’s not right. And believe me, if I become president, oh do they have problems. They’re going to have such problems.”

(http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click)More generally, Mr. Trump has discussed revising libel laws to make it easier to sue over critical coverage.

“I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,” Mr. Trump said in February (http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click). “We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.”

Arizona Bay
06-03-2016, 07:28 PM
On one hand, Mr. Trump seemed to misunderstand the scope of presidential power. Libel is a state-law tort constrained by First Amendment principles, and a president’s views do not figure in its application.

On the other hand, said Ilya Somin (http://faculty.law.gmu.edu/isomin/?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click), a law professor at George Mason University, Mr. Trump’s comments betrayed a troubling disregard for free expression.

“There are very few serious constitutional thinkers who believe public figures should be able to use libel as indiscriminately as Trump seems to think they should,” Professor Somin said. “He poses a serious threat to the press and the First Amendment.”

Many of Mr. Trump’s statements about legal issues were extemporaneous and resist conventional legal analysis. Some seemed to betray ignorance of fundamental legal concepts, as when he said in a debate (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431967/maryanne-trump-barry-vs-samuel-alito-abortion?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click) that Senator Ted Cruz of Texas had criticized Mr. Trump’s sister, a federal appeals court judge, “for signing a certain bill,” adding for good measure that Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., while still an appeals court judge, had also “signed that bill.”
But bills are legislative rather than judicial documents. And, as it happened, Judge Alito had not joined the opinion in question (http://www.npr.org/documents/2006/jan/alitodocuments/plannedparenthood2000.pdf?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click).

Asked on “Good Morning America” in March about whom he would name to the Supreme Court, Mr. Trump said (http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-supreme-court-clinton-email-221377?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click) he would “probably appoint people that would look very seriously at” Hillary Clinton’s “email disaster because it’s criminal activity.” In the constitutional structure, however, Supreme Court justices are neither investigators nor prosecutors.

1940COMMENTSWhen Mr. Trump recently released (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominees.html?version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click) a list of his potential Supreme Court nominees, conservative and libertarian scholars were heartened, but only to a point.

“It was a tremendous list, a great list,” said Mr. Shapiro, from the Cato Institute. “Who knows how much you can trust the list?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-constitution-power.html?smid=fb-nytpolitics&smtyp=cur&_r=0

S.V. Airlie
06-03-2016, 07:30 PM
Too long, reds won't read that!

seanz
06-03-2016, 08:13 PM
He's already threatening America's (tenuous) link to reality....

:)

Vince Brennan
06-03-2016, 08:17 PM
He's already threatening America's (tenuous) link to reality....

:)


Wait.... Wait.... LINK? WHAT effin' link?


WHAT REALITY???

seanz
06-03-2016, 08:18 PM
Don't panic.

:)

Boatfix
06-03-2016, 08:30 PM
How about some facts interjected into the reality of this thread. The current president has consistently over-reached with executive power with actions, not words, so much so that he has been slapped down over 13 times by the courts.

S.V. Airlie
06-03-2016, 08:33 PM
What do you expect, congress is totally an obstructionist mess. The reds have wanted him out even before Jan. 20th, 2009. They've been pretty blunt about it and it's obvious they care more about themselves than the country. He uses every power he can use to thwart them and they hate it!

seanz
06-03-2016, 08:35 PM
The current president has consistently over-reached with executive power with actions, not words, so much so that he has been slapped down over 13 times by the courts.

See, Vince. This sort of tenuous, this sort of reality.

Thanks for dropping by Boatfix, I thought I'd have to explain stuff all on my lonesome.
:)

S.V. Airlie
06-03-2016, 08:39 PM
Be civil, boat fix does not understand what he says!:(

seanz
06-03-2016, 08:42 PM
I used a smilie an everythin.
:)


I endeavour to be civil at all times. Honest.

Arizona Bay
06-03-2016, 09:39 PM
Tenuous reality is fine, as long as you stay out of public, and leave weaponry and sharp objects alone.

Obama isn't running for anything, and if he could run for Pres. again, he'd win by a landslide. :D

Osborne Russell
06-04-2016, 12:00 PM
How about some facts interjected into the reality of this thread. The current president has consistently over-reached with executive power with actions, not words, so much so that he has been slapped down over 13 times by the courts.

So the courts are working? I wish you people would make up your minds.

Osborne Russell
06-04-2016, 12:00 PM
The Ratfrequenters have met their God.

I suspected he would look something this.

Osborne Russell
06-04-2016, 12:04 PM
When John "Torture" Yoo says your views are on Presidential power are "disturbing", they are.

Daniel Noyes
06-04-2016, 12:39 PM
The Ratfrequenters have met their God.


http://overpassesforamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/trump-rally-tard.png

"Democrats, can't live with'em..." :)

S.V. Airlie
06-04-2016, 12:42 PM
They should be wearing Hoods Daniel, then you'd know they are good ole boy reds.

Daniel Noyes
06-04-2016, 12:49 PM
They should be wearing Hoods Daniel, then you'd know they are good ole boy reds.

Reds?... what sort of hoods? cant' be white then they'd get confused with Democrat head gear of old... https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M0f7e4d6708a5da8bfab855e2502daee9H0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300

S.V. Airlie
06-04-2016, 12:55 PM
How about some facts interjected into the reality of this thread. . .

I'm looking forward to your contribution with bated breath!

Boatfix
06-04-2016, 01:01 PM
posted by Boatfix: How about some facts interjected into the reality of this thread. The current president has consistently over-reached with executive power with actions, not words, so much so that he has been slapped down over 13 times by the courts.

Stop posting incomplete quotations of my posts. Context is everything. Of course this is a common tactic used by the left here.


How about some facts interjected into this thread. . . in lieu of a disconnect with reality.

(is that better)?

S.V. Airlie
06-04-2016, 01:07 PM
Done so with an obstructionist Congress. I don't blame him for over reaching, the reds are very good at that!

Daniel Noyes
06-04-2016, 01:16 PM
http://c6.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/styles/original_image_with_cropping/public/uploaded/trump-rally-protest-san-jose.jpg?itok=C_NvuBDB

Bobcat
06-04-2016, 01:24 PM
Stop posting incomplete quotations of my posts. Context is everything. Of course this is a common tactic used by the left here.


How about some facts interjected into this thread. . . in lieu of a disconnect with reality.

(is that better)?

Stop quoting me: it preserves the inane things I post here

skuthorp
06-04-2016, 04:58 PM
"Revisionism is a hallmark of the right."
Revisionism is a tactic of all authoritarian regimes, but retired politicians are notable in their efforts to re-write history, and sometimes their descendants are worse as they strive for the respectability of inherited empires and fortunes.

John Smith
06-04-2016, 08:14 PM
I just finished reading "The Dark Side" written by Jane Mayer. Subject was the extent to which the Bush administration found ways around the Geneva convention and other restrictions of how to treat prisoners. "enemy combatants" was a term invented so as to exclude the detainees from the rules covering POWs.

The book asserts the reason people were detained with a trial in any forum is the fear the trial would bring out the torture the detainees were subjected to.

Looking back at that, it is very easy to see how a president gets around anything. It starts with appointing people into positions where they interpret the law, the rules, or the constitution, in a way that makes whatever the president does legal.

Daniel Noyes
06-04-2016, 09:08 PM
http://admin.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2016-06/196652_5_.jpg

S.V. Airlie
06-04-2016, 09:16 PM
Well, as California was owned by Mexico long before any gringo showed up, they have a point historically.

Daniel Noyes
06-04-2016, 09:18 PM
Those ANTI Trumers are just "great quality folk" ;)
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSdnyPWwh91PkIhzVw0Unt8oM1sIWZNs ZLu0KDg_G41oiSYxCA5bg http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/06/Trump-Supporter-San-Jose-Egg-Violence-Getty-640x480.jpg

S.V. Airlie
06-04-2016, 09:20 PM
Violence is always wrong but, in this case the Trumpster is the cause for much of it with his rants about Hispanics..

Boatfix
06-04-2016, 09:22 PM
http://admin.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2016-06/196652_5_.jpg

This is the stuff that will push Trump to a landslide win in November.

Boatfix
06-04-2016, 09:25 PM
Those ANTI Trumers are just "great quality folk" ;)
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSdnyPWwh91PkIhzVw0Unt8oM1sIWZNs ZLu0KDg_G41oiSYxCA5bg http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/06/Trump-Supporter-San-Jose-Egg-Violence-Getty-640x480.jpg

This gal initially was smiling obviously thinking this was a peaceful event and that differing sides just disagreed. Once she was hit multiple times and in the face and hair, she was obviously upset and went back inside. This is another image that will push Trump to a landslide win.

Arizona Bay
06-04-2016, 09:29 PM
Poor attempt at diversion... better drink some cool aide and try again.

Daniel Noyes
06-04-2016, 09:31 PM
This gal initially was smiling obviously thinking this was a peaceful event and that differing sides just disagreed. Once she was hit multiple times and in the face and hair, she was obviously upset and went back inside. This is another image that will push Trump to a landslide win.

Shamefull, these Anti-Trump SCUM should slither back into the primordial ooooze from which they emerged.

Daniel Noyes
06-04-2016, 09:32 PM
there's more! :)

http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/AP_SAN_TRUMP_SAN2_DC_4x3_992.jpg

S.V. Airlie
06-04-2016, 09:48 PM
Umm, same football game, I don't see any rioting. Hey Daniel, instead of deflecting, why don't you address the OP for a change?

Osborne Russell
06-05-2016, 12:10 AM
Shamefull, these Anti-Trump SCUM should slither back into the primordial ooooze from which they emerged.

They're scum but not because they're anti-Trump.

If only you could fast forward thirty years. Most of them would be lower middle class. Oh, to hear what they would say about "protesters" stomping their car.

Daniel Noyes
06-05-2016, 08:29 PM
They're scum but not because they're anti-Trump.

If only you could fast forward thirty years. Most of them would be lower middle class. Oh, to hear what they would say about "protesters" stomping their car.

Ugggg, I'm hoping to be "lower middle class" in 30 years... I'm going to be working with these MORONS?... I dout it! The Anti Trumpers are mostly "Comunity Organizers" welfare deadbeats, and kids of Wealthiest 1 Percenters... NOT working folk

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2016, 08:43 PM
Where do you come up with this garbage, and why do you swallow it?Hell eat anything.

CWSmith
06-05-2016, 08:53 PM
“I still believe we have the institutions of government that would restrain someone who seeks to exceed their constitutional obligations,” Mr. McCain said. “We have a Congress. We have the Supreme Court. We’re not Romania.”
“Our institutions, including the press, are still strong enough to prevent” unconstitutional acts, he said.

If the GOP politicians in Congress keep getting behind him, and he appoints that 5th conservative judge, there will be little to prevent him (them) from achieving their goals.

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2016, 08:55 PM
If the GOP politicians in Congress keep getting behind him, and he appoints that 5th conservative judge, there will be little to prevent him (them) from achieving their goals.So true!

Osborne Russell
06-06-2016, 06:54 PM
The Anti Trumpers are mostly "Comunity Organizers" welfare deadbeats, and kids of Wealthiest 1 Percenters... NOT working folk

Like I said, in thirty years, most of them will be lower middle class. The lucky ones.

skuthorp
06-06-2016, 08:17 PM
Someone here is advocating for Trump on the basis that he will reduce the US to the sort of chaos and disorder that they have been exporting for the last 40 years. He thinks you deserve The Donald.:cool:

seanz
06-06-2016, 08:32 PM
Speaking of a tenuous link to reality....Google "Antifa at Trump rallies"....be amazed at the lack of mainstream coverage.