Some of you older ones might remember this character from the annals of animation many years ago. Donald Duck might be more appropriate but this time 'Baby Huey' says it all about the 'Donald'.
More of my issues with this man is found in this Yahoo article, attached
https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-critic … 05089.html
It is odd, now that the California judge in the case involving investigating possible fraud in regard to Trump University has required that all the records associated with the enrollments be open as evidence, Trump says that it hateful and hate motivated.
Has it ever occurred to him that, perhaps, the judge is just doing his job??
To further castigate this judge, Trump blames President Obama for appointing him.
Why blame the president? Did he know at the time the judge was appointed that Trump and his bogus university would be on the judge's docket?
Trump accused this judge of being Mexican as an explanation as to why the judge is insisting on unsealing the records.
I have to listen to these all conservatives tell me that Trump is not really racist. Is that so? Then what does the judge's race have to do with his decision? Perhaps, again he is just a professional doing his job.
Trump should follow suit, and keep his mouth shut because everytime he opens it BS rushed forth.
My thoughts are that every time Sir Flipsalot opens his mouth it's to cry about something, proving he's a whiny little b_____.
Yes, just like the overgrown cry-baby canard in the cartoon.
He just has a lot of nerve to think that his opinion and stupid accusations supercedes that of a appointed judge doing his job. Donald needs to realise that certain concepts like 'integrity' are not for sale. If he hasn't learn that by now, then he will find that the 'Presidency' is not a good fit for him.
Donald believes his opinions supercede everything because no one does anything better than he does. Just ask him and he'll tell you! And if you question him or take him on, he'll cry and moan and say "she started it!" Because he is nothing more than a whiny little b____. He can't compete on an intellectual level, just an infantile one.
Sure like that B..........word , see how liberals are with hypocrisy, it knows no bounds ........ You guys said it yourselves ,"..........an Obama appointed judge ......", Is it me or is it just liberals that are far , far more loaded down with hypocrisy these days ?
Exactly why , at least a political centrist , should be the one to pick the next supreme court and federal judges . Clinton will load the courts down with her Clinton mafia judges , Sanders won't know what to do . And there are enough liberal -leftist , agenda driven judges now .
The courts should be at least ideologically divided and you know it .
I thought you revered the constitution! Now I find that you don't. The constitution provides that Supreme Court justices shall be nominated (not appointed) by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The President has done his part. Your conservative buddies in the Senate are not following the constitution. Why aren't you outraged, Mr. Patriot?
Funny, how you did not have any problem with Reagan or Bush II picking Supreme Court justices or Federal judges. Did you consider them as moderates?
Boy, right wing people do most assuredly turn my stomach.
Even in victory, Donald Trump can’t stop free flow rants.
Still think that Drumpf is the decoy so that in comparison, Clinton doesn't look so bad.
I am determined to do everything I can to keep that sorry excuse for human being out of the White House. That whiny little b____ will not damage my beloved country if I can help it. I heard someone say Senator Clinton has serious issues, but they are within "normal parameters." At least I know she has the intellect and temperament to represent us on the world stage.
Huh? What does my last comment have to do with Obama?
"That winey little B ........will not damage my beloved country .........." The same line is said about Obama , and you -.......... and your beloved , liberal ideologists don't love their [your ]country when you allow a constitutional auctioneer like Obama to systematically dismantle it .
Please provide specific examples of how Barack Obama has "systematically dismantled" this country.
"Constitutional auctioneer"? Lol
America was a land of self reliance, of choice, of freedom from unnecessary government interference. Obama was instrumental in forcing every citizen to purchase products whether they chose to do so or not. Instrumental in forcing people to purchase those products for others. Dismantling what we were and what worked in favor of a culture destined to fail.
America is a nation of laws. Obama has chosen to ignore those laws and instruct others to also ignore them in the matter of illegal aliens residing in the country. Dismantling the country by ignoring the basis of it.
Not to say he has done nothing worthwhile - he has. But he has also traveled the path of unneeded socialism, which is about as far from what made this country great as it is possible to get.
Yes, Obamacare requires purchase or payment of a fee, if you make above a certain income (a Republican idea by the way, from way back when Hillary was trying to enact health care legislation, and one implemented by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. That whole personal responsibility thing that conservatives like to talk about). Is that any different than requiring me to pay taxes to fund stupid wars? Or requiring everyone to contribute to social security, even if some don't want to? I get that you hate Obamacare, but to elevate Obama to the level of "systematically dismantling" our country because of Obamacare is just overwrought rhetoric, unless you include every other President who supported a program that used tax dollars (against someone's wishes) or required participation (against someone's wishes).
As far as ignoring illegal immigration laws, I assume you are referring to his Executive Order on the subject? Are you opposed to all executive orders, or just the ones you disagree with? Because if you oppose all of them, then you must truly despise Ronald Reagan, who issued over 380 during his eight years in office. I think Obama is around 230-235. If you don't oppose all of them, but only those you disagree with, then your contention that Obama's executive order regarding immigration is evidence of "systematically dismantling" our country means you also believe all presidents are "systematically dismantling" our country through unlawful executive orders. Of particular note is the one GWB did giving his vice president, Dick Cheney, the same ability to classify documents as the president. Were you similarly outraged then? Did you consider it evidence of systematically dismantling our country? By the way, Ronald Reagan issued at least one executive order on immigration, extending amnesty to family members who were not covered by the new immigration laws enacted while he was in office. I guess he started that systematic dismantling of our country way back then. But, we're still here. Weird, huh?
"Overwrought rhetoric", eh? That ObamaCare is the largest single spending bill in the history of the nation, that it requires every single citizen, adult or child, to purchase a private product for the first time in history...are those the things that make it "overwroght"? Or is there perhaps some justification for such statements that it is dismantling what we were in favor of a different type of culture?
I referred, as you assumed, to Obama's illegal (and yes, they have been found to be illegal) orders to ignore the laws of the country. The laws that Congress passed. And you think that is equivalent to unliked orders from other presidents as if that makes them OK? News flash: whether they are similar or not (they aren't, until you can give examples of another President ordering law enforcement personnel to ignore the law in millions of cases) they remain what I said: a dismantling of our legal system. From Congress to the cop on the beat that legal system is being dismantled by such ridiculous orders.
I am not a fan of executive orders. I just think that whining about Obama's executive orders is useless and pretty much always partisan, since presidents have been doing it for a very long time, and in ways that are just as awful. So, you think suspending deportation of illegal immigrants who have been in the country for years (not sure what the threshold is), excluding convicted criminals, is much worse than, say, giving the VP the ability to classify documents at will? I think Bush's executive order is much more damaging to my freedom than suspending deportation of someone who's already been here for years. See how this works? However, I'm not accusing Bush of systematically dismantling the country (that was the original post, not systematically dismantling the "legal system"). He believed his order was the right thing to do, just as Obama believes his is the right thing to do.
Yes, overwrought rhetoric.
There 's your first clue , Obama , the wanna be constitutional professor , believes that dismantling and dividing a nation is the best way forward. That's his modus operandi politically , Ask his liberal professor teachers , from implementing laws that force Americans to buy health insurance AND so to financially supporting the over priced and unregulated health care industry , to force feeding racial divisiveness into the American culture , where do I begin ! So goes the liquidation of constitutional value to American liberties. Shall we go on ----what with his dozens of extreme liberal appointees to federal court positions ? Let's face it this administration has bit the big one when it comes to the preservation of constitutional values .
Obamacare was agiveaway to Republicans and the health insurance industry. No doubt about that. Democrats have always wanted Medicare for All.
You still haven't given me any examples of Obama "systematically dismantling" our country, unless you agree that previous presidents were already systematically dismantling our country. Presidents are supposed to appoint judges. The constitution says so, Mr. Patriot. We elect presidents knowing this. The people speak when they vote for a president. Sorry your side is currently on the losing end, but you don't help your cause by whining about it. A president doing what the constitution tells him to do is not "systematically dismantling" the country. When Reagan nominated that lovely conservative Scalia to the Supreme Court, he was doing his job as president. No matter how much I disliked his decision, I would never whine about him doing his job and accuse him of systematically dismantling the country, even though Scalia and his buddies gave us Citizens United, one of the worse things ever to happen to us.
Overwrought drama, whining because your side doesn't get to pick this time. No wonder you like Trump.
"No, Reagan Did Not Offer An Amnesty By Lawless Executive Order"
Obama did! (Bush didn't)
* http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/20/no- … ive-order/
Democrats across print, web, and cable media have been repeating the claim that Obama is doing nothing more than what Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 did first.
As far as I've ever heard, Obama did not create any form of amnesty. He simply instructed enforcement officials to stop enforcing laws passed by Congress - a much different thing and all the rhetoric that it is an amnesty is just that. Empty rhetoric. Even Obama, unless I'm much mistaken, made it clear that it was NOT an amnesty program. Simply a statement that neither he nor anyone he had control over would allow laws to be enforced.
The DREAM Act was approved by the U.S. House after the November 2010 elections, but it was then rejected by the U.S. Senate.
This is an amazing article "Federal Court Throws “Rulebook” at Obama’s “Intentionally Deceptive” DOJ in Scorching Smackdown"
* http://aclj.org/executive-power/federal … -smackdown
The Obama DOJ pissed off the federal court royally. It looks like the Administration may have learned their lesson for being dishonest, deceptive, and for hiding truth. One can hope!
by Jack Lee 3 years ago
The executive order to suspend entry from 7 middle east countries for 90 days.Before you answer, consider the following,1. Is this order Constitutional?2. Was there precedence for this type of order by previous presidents?3. Does a district judge from Seattle have the right to stop it?4. What...
by ptosis 3 years ago
The poorly crafted Executive Order without consulting the people who have to enforce it seems - hamfisted."Mr. Schneiderman said that the executive order was unconstitutional and that he and other attorneys general were exploring the possibility of legal action. “There may be grounds for a...
by Prakash RnP 3 years ago
I think it's high time someone brought home to Mr President the brute and naked truth, as I view it, namely the fact that his silly policies that fail to win the seal of approval of the international community including America's indispensable allies ( such as the French, Brits, Germans, etc ) in...
by leeberttea 10 years ago
Executive order 12425 was signed by Obama back in December. It essentially gives Interpol freedom to act as they deem necessary in the USA without regard to restraints of the constitution or US law. Unfortunately this is being used to attack and harass dissidents from Iran living in the USA.Why...
by Deforest 5 years ago
Then, why did Obama (the executive) made a new law by changing what the constitution stipulated anteriorly? Isn't the US becoming an absolute monarchy?
by OLYHOOCH 8 years ago
Just when is Enough, Enough. EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED. It makes no difference which way your political persuasion leans, it only matters if you believe in the constitution and the power distribution of the government. There is a reason Executive Orders have in the past been used very rarely. It is...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|