I think this is actually the most alarming thing I’ve seen Trump do yet.
And that’s saying something.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
47 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Not a concern, he doesn’t mean it. Focus on the real disaster: Dems are about to nominate a pro-corporate, neoconservative, wealthy, disciple of Wall Street. At least with Trump, we know he’s a wildcard who is never serious about what he says and is willing to take on the establishment*. That’s also why a Sanders-Trump debate would be wonderful: we would finally get to see two leaders, strong in their convictions, telling the establishment** to go to hell.
*Establishment does not include President Obama, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, Robert Reich, Russ Feingold or any other politician or noted pundit that 1) supports Sanders or 2) is somebody who I like.
**The establishment includes Paul Krugman, Barney Frank, DWS, Joe Manchin, Rachel Maddow, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Kos, and any other politician or noted pundit that 1) does not support Bernie Sanders and/or 2) is someone who myself, Bernie Sanders, or other Sanders voters do not like/once liked but have decided not to like after saying something negative about Bernie’s campaign.
Poe’s Law, my friend, Poe’s Law.
And I recent read that there is a new addendum to Poe’s Law…in that the original post has to have a somewhat believable premiss, and any post making fun of Sanders is automatically unbelievable, so can only be posted on far right wing web sites.
Hey, Trump’s campaign slogan is to make America great again.
Hillary has an arrow pointing to the right!
The choices are clear, my friend.
#Trump/Arpaio 2016: Because Hillary is just too dangerous.
Of course he doesn’t mean it. Just like he doesn’t mean his promise to build a border wall and deport 11 million “illegals” and ban Muslims and assassinate families of suspected terrorists and change libel laws to silence his enemies and….
Jeezus.
He doesn’t mean it?
Keep persuading yourself of that idiocy, my friend.
Nice!
Maybe the judge can put a gag order on the case.
Trump won’t be able to resist.
.
As much as anything, it’s his pettiness and thin skin that will do him in.
A bit ot but Sanders is now attacking Gov Malloy of Ct and Barney Frank and wants them removed as co chairs of the rules committee. (Huff Po) Great. Add them to DWS. Geez, if he wins Ca what next?
I think that chairs of a rules commitee that have campaigned for only one of the candidates is a hazardous way to set up a convention. If the idea is to bargain for his support, that is a strange way to do it.
If he wins California, it means that the pledged delegate vote will become more salient. It matters how much he wins California by and how many delegates he gets out of it.
Geez, if the media declare Clinton the winner of the nomination after the NJ vote, what next? Not the NJ vote, but each declaration was enough for some #notTrump candidates to fold at several primaries until none was left–even though Trump had not closed off the possibility of someone stopping him. That was because their financial backers threw in the towel.
Sanders’s backers have more of a dog in this hunt than does Edelman or the Kochs. Given the tack of the Clinton camp over the last month, those supporters are likely to go all the way to the end. And if they are not shown the respect of 40% or 45% of the primary voters, they will individually decide and how many are left to support Clinton is what she will get. That’s what’s next. And Sanders will not be calling that likely nor can he do anything about it; he can only command leadership if they are willing to follow.
If he can’t bring his supporters, what good is he? If he can’t bring them, he deserves no more than any other loser.
Of course it’s all silly. Approximately 45% of primary voters voted for Sanders, but that does not mean 45% of the people who voted for him won’t vote for Clinton. That argument is used constantly here…’oh, you know she has to do something for the 45% to get them to switch’. Nonsense. Like eight years ago, the number will be minuscule.
I understand you NEED, really NEED to believe you are among some huge ‘movement’. It gives you agency on the Internet…and people read your posts.
But Sanders is a second place finisher (first loser, if you will), and not at all close to having won.
.
Of course you could be right. But you could be really really wrong too. Sanders, if he supports Hillary, may campaign for her, but if he is turned away he may just go home. That’s ok if you are right. But if she needs his votes and supporters, if she needs a united party she needs his support. That 19% would be a concern to me if I were her.
Excellent definition of Internet posts;
“You could be right. But you could be really really wrong too.”
Yep.
.
He’s come closer than any non-insider has come before in the Democratic party. That’s important, and I’m looking forward to building off that as much as I can.
19% and in a race to zero with Trump is a hell of a way to start a GE campaign. The truth is, win or lose, Hillary and co needs to stop rolling over Sanders. She may need him to campaign against Trump, help bring in his supporters and elect down ticket candidates. Like it or not we may be approaching an inflection point for the democratic party. The future could be much different from here.
I’m hoping for a mass walkout at the convention.
I wonder if he’s still sick and tired of hearing about Hillary Clinton’s emails?
I bet she is, for sure.
Yeah, I’m getting “Is there no man who will rid me of this troublesome judge” from this too. Trump is making it clear that if elected he’ll rule as a frank Fascist.
People say he doesn’t dogwhistle, but he does. It’s just that he’s not dogwhistling to the run-of-the-mill racists, he’s dogwhistling to white supremacists and fascists. He want extralegal violent supporters but he knows he can’t be elected if he asks for it explicitly, so he’s dogwhistling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFqCJfUKlls
But remember.
Hillary is the real danger.
Interesting take, and you can certainly see that in this particular attack. I will start watching him from that perspective.
This attack can’t be anything but an attempt by Trump for personal advantage. Think how that judges office phone and email lit up.
.
Bernie is showing the man to be puffery. Where is the muscle that such orders usually bring.
And where does he cross the line to drawing a contempt of court citation. He’s feeling his limits under the First Amendment. Likely he will use that knowledge later in the campaign.
His whole shtick is keeping people (like you) fascinated with “Just how far will he go?” And he told you how he would suck the media in.
If he’s talking about the judge, he’s not talking about Hillary or Bernie. There’s that.
Sanders got pansted by Trump in front of the whole country. Only his supporters don’t see that.
This month it’s Trump, two months ago it was when he flew to Rome to genuflect to the Pope, who is technically a head of state.
.
Did he really genuflect?
I meant it figuratively. What I wanted to say was ‘went to Rome to throw his panties at the Pope’ because in my mind that is closer to the situation. But two references to pants might have seemed repetitive.
IMHO opinion the Pope thing showed a major character flaw. The Trump situation was just a grasping for free media in California as he is light on money for ads. No different than a Clinton debate.
But situations show a proclivity to leap in without grasping long term consequences. He’s no deep thinker, that’s for sure.
.
I guess you’re looking on to see that bad men do not compass their ends. Good for you.
Thank you.
.
Are you a good man?
If you look up a couple of posts you will see I wrote “IMHO opinion….”,
so I do have my flaws.
.
Now you’re really pulling my leg. Good luck.
I have to admit, I cannot even comprehend where you are coming from with major character flaw.
I don’t call showing that the media doesn’t take the election seriously and neither does Trump “being pantsted”.
But if it does affect his remaining primary voters (which was its intent) it is irrelevant to the general election.
I’m intrigued by the Clinton (or anti-Sanders) commenters’ insistence on one-upping perceived Sanders supporters.
What’s behind that? It’s not going to change their vote and might even confirm them in that vote.
If there is no debate, that shows that (1) Clinton does not honor agreements unless the are of advantage to her, (2) The media will conspire with a candidate to “pantsed” a candidate for the office of President of the United States. (3) A candidate will try to undercut a candidate of another party to prevent an honest opinion by voters on matters critical to the campaign, and (4) a candidate will allow this to go on on their behalf without comment.
Someone who is naive might call that “rigged” and consequently never vote ever again.
Someone else might call it what it is. A distraction from the voters getting a strong debate between all three of the candidates.
Trump is weak because he will not allow himself to be challenged or put into a position to be challenged. That is cowardice. The sooner the voters find out the better.
Rather than ‘one upping’ it’s more like a lack of willingness to let bullshit sit without a rebuttal. You don’t like it, stay to the right column with your like minded cohort.
Like anything I say or write on the Internet is going to have any long range consequence on someone’s voting pattern. Only an imbecile believes something like that.
.
Wonder if this success will lead Trump to refuse debate with Clinton? He would certainly get press from that. She has set the precedent, no?
Republicans are no respecters of convention. Trump even more-so.
You are just made Hillary didn’t get to see the Pope. You really should be glad because if he splashed some holy water on her she would have disappeared in a puff of smoke.
This is not a new thing. Tom Delay got his judge replaced because he donated to the wrong party.
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/02/nation/na-delay2
I don’t think Delay was in federal court. Big difference.
It will be interesting to see if Trump now moves to recuse the judge, based on bias because Trump badmouthed him.
He’ll be disappointed if he thinks that will work.
President Hillary should nominate Judge Curiel to the Supreme Court. Just because….
That’s pretty damn clever as the judge can’t fight back.
Well, he can. And he can do it in a much more effective manner than Trump can.
Let’s see how the rulings go.
Procedurally sure, but:
LOL — oh, yes, the judge can fight back, and boy howdy, has he ever:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/28/politics/trump-university-donald-trump-documents/index.html
You have to be a special kind of arrogant idiot to pull that kind of crap on a judge hearing a lawsuit you’re a party to. I bet Trump’s lawyers cringed when they heard what he’d said.
Oh, I thought you were going to go with Trump raising the ante on climate change denial: Donald Trump Tells Drought-Plagued Californians: `There Is No Drought’ — “If I win, believe me, we’re going to start opening up the water.”
Guess someone forget to tell Trump that he wasn’t in Kansas. Fresno isn’t a liberal bastion, but it did go for Obama in ’08 and of it two House reps, one is a Democrats.
I had the same thought, that it’s the most alarming thing I’ve heard yet about Trump, maybe even worse than the episode in which he pulled Ivana’s hair out and raped her. Undoubtedly, Trump’s goal is to bully Judge Curiel (and any other judge who might be assigned to a case against him) into refraining from issuing an unfavorable opinion.
It’s not even true that Judge Curiel has ruled consistently against Trump. Last September, he granted in part a motion by Trump to decertify the class. He held that class certification continued to be appropriate on liability issues, but decertified that class on damages (and bifurcated the liability and damages phases of the case).
Similarly, last November, Judge Curiel granted in part Trump’s motion for summary judgment. The court denied summary judgment on liability, but granted it on injunctive relief. The plaintiffs had sought an injunction that would have barred Trump from re-starting the “university” after the case is over, as he has said he will do. The court denied the injunction because none of the named plaintiffs had standing to seek such relief.
On April 9, 2015, the court awarded nearly $800,000 in attorney fees and costs to Tarla Makaeff, the original named plaintiff against whom Trump filed a SLAPP suit. The judge previously assigned to the case, the Hon. Irma Gonzalez, had denied Makaeff’s motion to strike Trump University’s counter-claim for defamation. Makaeff appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the district court. Judge Curiel’s award of fees and costs undoubtedly annoyed Trump, but it reduced her demand by nearly $500,000. Ouch.
All the above opinions are thorough, careful and based on solid legal arguments. I’ve kept his 51-page opinion on Ms. Makaeff’s attorney fees to remind me what I need to cover in a fee petition.
(publicly, anyway) cost Trump?
Now that would be an interesting thing to know.
Based on her public-record claims about his treatment of her, doesn’t strike me as plausible that they were given freely/sincerely.