Trump

[cannon_fodder]

Cannon, you must also think poorly of Cruz and Kasich since they both waffled on the same pledge? Trump isn't putting on anybody. We all know that he is an opportunist, a narcissist, and a bully. In short, a successful businessman!

Seriously, he has let loose the frustration that the powerless carry with them in a big duffel bag. For instance, other than lawyers or college graduates who have had a few hours of law, common folk don't consider his  surrogate's actions as tantamount to assault and battery. And that is who he represents. 

I do think poorly of Cruz. And I said the pledge was stupid. Kasich's response was the best: none of us should have answered that question. And yes, I do hold it against both of them. They each stated something that they are now backing out of. But the "everyone else is a DB too" argument doesn't cut it with my teenager, and I like to think we can hold the president to a higher standard. Plus, I think those two did intend to stand by it when they made it. Going back on your word to sign a pledge you don't believe knowing you intended to break it is a new level of loser. Particularly when he is winning and could, presumable, just let the issue lay.

And, fwiw, the actions aren't "tantamount to assault and battery," they meet the legal definition.
- - - -

Conan:

I take exception to your characterization of it being a safety issue. Trump has secret service protection and police protection wherever he goes. He also has a private security detail. None of them thought anyone was threatening enough to intervene. Only his campaign manager. Who chose to intervene only against a reporter from a news organization Trump views as hostile and then lie about it. As you said, there were dozens of people crowding the candidate, as there often are. Yet only one was yanked away... for safety. If the any of those law enforcement officials had to intervene and stated your reasoning, I would accept it. It's not like he beat her after he yanked her away.

My major issue is the characterization of "us and them." If "we" get too close to "them" we should expect to be assaulted. But if "we" did the same thing to "them," then we should expect charges.  Not in my America. We are all equal under the law.

I have never, in my entire life, intentionally laid hands on a woman in such a way that I left bruising. He had no legal right to do so. Our laws require us to keep our hands to ourselves. He didn't. These are the consequences he risked. If I went up to Trump's wife and yanked her our of Saks Fifth Avenue, I'd expect some issues with the police.

The alternative is that Trump's campaign manager can batter anyone he feels like because he is a campaign manager for a major political candidate and you are not. You should expect such treatment. He doesn't have to put up with the likes of you. I detest that sentiment.

As I said, I'm not calling for blood. This shouldn't be a major ordeal. And...like I said in my initial comment. I'm biased. I have disliked Trump for more than a decade and despise everything to do with his politics. But if I thought it was unjust, I'd admit that and then add that it couldn't happen to a worse person.  

[Conan71]

Oh, I know she's far from innocent. Calling her a "reporter" is far harder than calling her a victim, and she's not much of a victim. There are no good actors here.

But don't let this guy off the hook. This isn't the only time Lewandowski's has been accused of being personally physical at rallies and as campaign manager he is very much at fault for his staff constantly being rough with protesters and other reporters. Even when he personally doesn't place a hand on anyone. 

If I were Trump, I'd tell my campaign guys to leave the thuggery to the Secret Service and the local constabulary.

This is what is odd, she was defended by her employer all the way up to the CEO, Larry Solov and she acted like she had no support from them.

This is such a new age with people essentially able to broadcast to the entire world with social media.  I'm in disbelief about this whole Twitter battle between Fields, her boyfriend, Lewandowski, and Trump.  If you feel you've been wronged, go file a police report. 

Everything around Trump's campaign is just so freaking bizarre.  It's like a Simpsons, South Park, or Family Guy caricature.

[cannon_fodder]

Trump vows to appoint Supreme Court Justice who will investigate Hillary's Emails:

Well, I'd probably appoint people that would look very seriously at her email disaster because it's a criminal activity, and I would appoint people that would look very seriously at that to start off with," Trump said in a phone interview with ABC's Good Morning America. "What she's getting away with is absolutely murder. You talk about a case— now that's a real case.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/03/30/Trump-says-he-would-pick-Supreme-Court-justices-to-investigate-Clintons-email/4701459359250/

Dear Mr. Trump...

The United States of America has three branches of government. The executive branch is tasked with enforcing the laws (that's the branch you are running for) - it conducts lots and lots of investigations and has and is currently investigating Hillary's emails via the Justice Department. There is the legislative branch - those are the law makers that can and do conduct investigations through committees. They have and are investigating Hillary.

Then there is the judiciary. On the Federal level we have the District Courts. Those are trial courts. They hear cases in which juries usually decide the facts. They do not conduct investigations. Then we have Circuit Court of Appeals. As the name suggests, they hear appeals from the District Court - deciding if they messed up or clarifying points of law. They do not conduct investigations. Then we have the Supreme Court, if is often referred to as a Constitutional Court. It does and can hear appeals on many issues, and can reserve original jurisdiction on several matters that aren't on appeal, but mostly it resolves Constitutional points of law or settles disputes between the Circuit Courts of Appeal. It does not conduct investigations.

Now, in much of Europe and many Common Wealth countries, judges can conduct investigations. Rarely does the Constitutional Court do so, but I think they can. But you are not running for President of Somewhere Over the Rainbow Land. So, in this country, whatever Justice you appoint will not be conducting any investigations.

You might also find this helpful.

[Conan71]

Conan:

I take exception to your characterization of it being a safety issue. Trump has secret service protection and police protection wherever he goes. He also has a private security detail. None of them thought anyone was threatening enough to intervene. Only his campaign manager. Who chose to intervene only against a reporter from a news organization Trump views as hostile and then lie about it. As you said, there were dozens of people crowding the candidate, as there often are. Yet only one was yanked away... for safety. If the any of those law enforcement officials had to intervene and stated your reasoning, I would accept it. It's not like he beat her after he yanked her away.

My major issue is the characterization of "us and them." If "we" get too close to "them" we should expect to be assaulted. But if "we" did the same thing to "them," then we should expect charges.  Not in my America. We are all equal under the law.

I have never, in my entire life, intentionally laid hands on a woman in such a way that I left bruising. He had no legal right to do so. Our laws require us to keep our hands to ourselves. He didn't. These are the consequences he risked. If I went up to Trump's wife and yanked her our of Saks Fifth Avenue, I'd expect some issues with the police.

The alternative is that Trump's campaign manager can batter anyone he feels like because he is a campaign manager for a major political candidate and you are not. You should expect such treatment. He doesn't have to put up with the likes of you. I detest that sentiment.

As I said, I'm not calling for blood. This shouldn't be a major ordeal. And...like I said in my initial comment. I'm biased. I have disliked Trump for more than a decade and despise everything to do with his politics. But if I thought it was unjust, I'd admit that and then add that it couldn't happen to a worse person.  

There's a couple of points you have missed though: Breitbart has generally been considered to be in the tank for Trump, they are far from unfriendly to him.  She was musing that whomever grabbed her must have thought she was with the mainstream media.  Even Trump knows Breitbart has been friendly to his campaign.  Whether or not they recognized her as a Breitbart reporter is beyond me.  She's a very attractive woman, a face you would not forget easily.

In fact, she must have thought being with Breitbart gave her carte blanche to accost The Donald based on this exchange with another reporter after the incident:

The recording reportedly captures Fields' question, and the voice of allegedly Lewandowski saying "excuse me." Then a sound is heard and Terris asks Fields if she is OK.

"I can't believe he just did that that was so hard. Was that Corey?" Fields reportedly asked Terris. Terris replied yes, and asked, "what threat were you?"

"He literally went like this and was grabbing me down," Fields said, according to Politico. "I don't even what to do [about] what he just did to me. Oh my God, that really spooked me that someone would do that."

Terris said that he would write about the incident in his story, and asked if Ledwandowski knew where Fields worked.

"Yeah, I don't understand," Fields reportedly said. "That looks horrible. You're going after a Breitbart reporter, the people who are nicest to you?"

http://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemcneal/michelle-fields-trump#.ovKwp1DLX

Trump claims she actually grabbed or touched his arm without his permission first.  She had no right to touch him with out his permission.  That's battery under Florida law.  He chose not to press charges, according to The Donald.  It works both ways.  

She claims she was nearly pulled to the ground.  The video shows no such thing.  There's no doubt she got a jolt out of it.  I doubt Lewandowski intended any harm, who in their right mind would in a room full of witnesses?  

We are all equal under the law to an extent.  There have to be some limitations to that, much as the 2nd Amendment doesn't give absolute power to own any firearm you wish and not without training and a background check in most states.  Certainly, the president cannot break into my house and shoot my wife with total impunity.  

I contend you don't just reach out and touch or grab POTUS or a leading presidential candidate unless their hand was extended first and not expect that there might be repercussions as someone might mistake you as an assailant.

Trump's lackeys would do well to keep their hands in their pockets and stay off Twitter from now on and let the paid professional thugs do their thing.

If nothing else, Trump has given us all something to talk about out of the ordinary this campaign cycle.  I figured he'd vanish like the proverbial fart in the wind after Super Tuesday if he even lasted that long.  Somehow this trail of smile he leaves behind just makes him more popular.

[swake]

I take exception to your characterization of it being a safety issue. Trump has secret service protection and police protection wherever he goes. He also has a private security detail. None of them thought anyone was threatening enough to intervene. Only his campaign manager. Who chose to intervene only against a reporter from a news organization Trump views as hostile and then lie about it.

This is the most bizarre part. The news organization that she worked for, Breitbart, isn't remotely hostile. They actually act as Trumps mouthpiece and several editors and reporters have claimed (anonymously) that Trump is paying Breitbart for positive coverage.

[Conan71]

Trump vows to appoint Supreme Court Justice who will investigate Hillary's Emails:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/03/30/Trump-says-he-would-pick-Supreme-Court-justices-to-investigate-Clintons-email/4701459359250/

Dear Mr. Trump...

The United States of America has three branches of government. The executive branch is tasked with enforcing the laws (that's the branch you are running for) - it conducts lots and lots of investigations and has and is currently investigating Hillary's emails via the Justice Department. There is the legislative branch - those are the law makers that can and do conduct investigations through committees. They have and are investigating Hillary.

Then there is the judiciary. On the Federal level we have the District Courts. Those are trial courts. They hear cases in which juries usually decide the facts. They do not conduct investigations. Then we have Circuit Court of Appeals. As the name suggests, they hear appeals from the District Court - deciding if they messed up or clarifying points of law. They do not conduct investigations. Then we have the Supreme Court, if is often referred to as a Constitutional Court. It does and can hear appeals on many issues, and can reserve original jurisdiction on several matters that aren't on appeal, but mostly it resolves Constitutional points of law or settles disputes between the Circuit Courts of Appeal. It does not conduct investigations.

Now, in much of Europe and many Common Wealth countries, judges can conduct investigations. Rarely does the Constitutional Court do so, but I think they can. But you are not running for President of Somewhere Over the Rainbow Land. So, in this country, whatever Justice you appoint will not be conducting any investigations.

You might also find this helpful.

A scary thought just occurred to me.  if Trump won, what if he selected this buffoon for his AG?

[cannon_fodder]

A scary thought just occurred to me.  if Trump won, what if he selected this buffoon for his AG?

I hacked in and then ran that scenario through the Pentagon's newest super computer contingency simulator and this was the output:

[swake]

A scary thought just occurred to me.  if Trump won, what if he selected this buffoon for his AG?

I don't know about Trump, but Cruz certainly would.

[patric]

There's a couple of points you have missed though: Breitbart has generally been considered to be in the tank for Trump, they are far from unfriendly to him.

Playing catch-up on the whole Brietbart-Trump incestuous relationship

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/breitbart-deletes-post-ben-shapiro

[cannon_fodder]

Paris Hilton 2020.

It just occurred to me that Paris Hilton is essentially Donald Trump without the hatred, but with actual business success. Where Trump has managed to "under-perform" the market by more than 50%, Hilton has beat the market by large multipliers (she's worth $130mil and has "only" inherited $5mil relatively recently). And like him, she is a reality TV star, from a rich family, who has loved ones who have done naked photo shoots, and is utterly clueless on every criteria of competence important for a president.

If someone wants to argue in favor of The Donald, they should cast him aside in favor of Paris Hilton. She's more successful than Donald.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Everything around Trump's campaign is just so freaking bizarre.  It's like a Simpsons, South Park, or Family Guy caricature.

Oh, you mean real America...

[Red Arrow]

You'll note she has been a reporter for a very long time and has somehow managed to not be assaulted in all of that time.

Do you know this to be a fact about not being assaulted?

Does she bruise easily enabling her to make a big deal out of something she didn't deserve but is now playing to the hilt?

[Conan71]

Do you know this to be a fact about not being assaulted?

Does she bruise easily enabling her to makeing a big deal out of something she didn't deserve but is now playing to the hilt?

Best summary I've heard yet on this kerfluffle.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Do you know this to be a fact about not being assaulted?

Does she bruise easily enabling her to make a big deal out of something she didn't deserve but is now playing to the hilt?

Interesting....just how any previous or lack of previous incident could have any possible bearing on this one...?


Well, unless of course, she has a business card for advertising/promoting S & M type activities....

That's like the convenience store getting robbed for a second time, and the clerk somehow is at fault because they were robbed once before.  Two makes a trend, so the robber can't possibly be at fault for the second one.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Just as a comparison - shows how far we have come (downward) in just a short 46 years.  From this to Trump.  What a ridiculous path we have chosen to trod since.

The most significant 20 minutes in human history.

http://www.firstmenonthemoon.com/