Buchanan seems to be defended Trump’s assault on the independence of the judiciary by saying, well, others did it too.Here is a different viewpoint.www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/donald-trump-2016-judge-gonzalo-curiel-attack-213946?o=1
Every time someone asks for a change of venue due to a defect they see in a judge, they are questioning the independence of the judiciary. As the article stated, we now have a Supreme Court Justice who says her ethnicity will indeed influence her decisions. My question is, how can anyone see the gay marriage ruling and still
Every time someone asks for a change of venue due to a defect they see in a judge, they are questioning the independence of the judiciary. As the article stated, we now have a Supreme Court Justice who says her ethnicity will indeed influence her decisions. My question is, how can anyone see the gay marriage ruling and still
Buchanan gave some good points and you seemed to only get out of the article he defends Trump because others do it to. But no matter. You won’t agree. That’s cool. I respect your right to hold a differing view________________
What I’m saying is that the main thrust of his defense of Trump was that others had done the same thing–as if others have done wrong before Trump justifies Trump doing wrong.His other points are hardly worth mentioning. He says people are criticizing Trump because he is politically incorrect. That is not what the issue is in Trump’s criticism of Curiel. Just like Trump’s criticism of the disabled reporter, John McCain as a former POW, and Megyn Kelly as a journalist asking pointed questions, Trump is a narcissist and he will always go after people who don’t make him look good. If it were a matter of ONLY being politically incorrect, he would have gotten no criticism from Newt Gingrich who doesn’t bow at the altar of political correctness. Buchanan also says that Curiel is an Obama appointee. So what?
This should be an easy win for a solid Republican, even a ‘company man’. I agree Trump is running an unorthodox campaign and is proud of it. BUT this thing with the judge should have been taken care of by his lawyers, not tried in the media. Most of us despise it when a case is tried in the Media.The post is good, the wording is good, but unnecessary as relating to a presidential campaign. I get the idea Trump would use a 12 gauge shotgun for target practice from the 500 yard line, making a lot of good noise but will not reach the target. I personally hope Trump wins or the Libertarian catches fire and shoots to the top (Unlikely), so I can feel comfortable he has the thrust to beat the Hillary one. I am a ‘Never Hillary’ guy at present (but getting ready to face the facts, she most likely will win). ________________Some facts but mostly just my [email protected]/
Buchanan ran under the centrist/populist nomination of the Reform Party in 2000, incidentally the same year that non-politician Donald Trump ran for the same nomination until he realized he wouldn’t/couldn’t win. He and Trump have always been populists and not conservatives.
Buchanan seems to be defended Trump’s assault on the independence of the judiciary by saying, well, others did it too.Here is a different viewpoint.www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/donald-trump-2016-judge-gonzalo-curiel-attack-213946?o=1
Every time someone asks for a change of venue due to a defect they see in a judge, they are questioning the independence of the judiciary. As the article stated, we now have a Supreme Court Justice who says her ethnicity will indeed influence her decisions. My question is, how can anyone see the gay marriage ruling and still
Every time someone asks for a change of venue due to a defect they see in a judge, they are questioning the independence of the judiciary. As the article stated, we now have a Supreme Court Justice who says her ethnicity will indeed influence her decisions. My question is, how can anyone see the gay marriage ruling and still
It’s self evident________________
Obviously you and I won’t agree on this. Trump haters cannot be reasoned with it seems________________
So far, you’ve not given any evidence that Judge Curiel is showing partiality in his rulings.
Buchanan gave some good points and you seemed to only get out of the article he defends Trump because others do it to. But no matter. You won’t agree. That’s cool. I respect your right to hold a differing view________________
What I’m saying is that the main thrust of his defense of Trump was that others had done the same thing–as if others have done wrong before Trump justifies Trump doing wrong.His other points are hardly worth mentioning. He says people are criticizing Trump because he is politically incorrect. That is not what the issue is in Trump’s criticism of Curiel. Just like Trump’s criticism of the disabled reporter, John McCain as a former POW, and Megyn Kelly as a journalist asking pointed questions, Trump is a narcissist and he will always go after people who don’t make him look good. If it were a matter of ONLY being politically incorrect, he would have gotten no criticism from Newt Gingrich who doesn’t bow at the altar of political correctness. Buchanan also says that Curiel is an Obama appointee. So what?
I have a hard time understanding anyone claiming to be a conservative who trashes pat Buchanan________________
This should be an easy win for a solid Republican, even a ‘company man’. I agree Trump is running an unorthodox campaign and is proud of it. BUT this thing with the judge should have been taken care of by his lawyers, not tried in the media. Most of us despise it when a case is tried in the Media.The post is good, the wording is good, but unnecessary as relating to a presidential campaign. I get the idea Trump would use a 12 gauge shotgun for target practice from the 500 yard line, making a lot of good noise but will not reach the target. I personally hope Trump wins or the Libertarian catches fire and shoots to the top (Unlikely), so I can feel comfortable he has the thrust to beat the Hillary one. I am a ‘Never Hillary’ guy at present (but getting ready to face the facts, she most likely will win). ________________Some facts but mostly just my [email protected]/
Buchanan ran under the centrist/populist nomination of the Reform Party in 2000, incidentally the same year that non-politician Donald Trump ran for the same nomination until he realized he wouldn’t/couldn’t win. He and Trump have always been populists and not conservatives.
Please tell one idea of Buchanan that is not conservative________________