If you look beyond Donald Trump’s comprehensive unpleasantness — is there a disagreeable human trait he does not have? — you might see this: He is a fundamentally sad figure. His compulsive boasting is evidence of insecurity. His unassuageable neediness suggests an aching hunger for others’ approval to ratify his self-admiration. His incessant announcements of his self-esteem indicate that he is not self-persuaded. Now, panting with a puppy’s insatiable eagerness to be petted, Trump has reveled in the approval of Vladimir Putin, murderer and war criminal.
Putin slyly stirred America’s politics by saying Trump is “very . . . talented,” adding that he welcomed Trump’s promise of “closer, deeper relations,” whatever that might mean, with Russia. Trump announced himself flattered to be “so nicely complimented” by a “highly respected” man: “When people call you brilliant, it’s always good.” When MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said Putin “kills journalists, political opponents and invades countries,” Trump replied that “at least he’s a leader.” Besides, Trump breezily asserted, “I think our country does plenty of killing also.” Two days later, Trump, who rarely feigns judiciousness, said: “It has not been proven that he’s killed reporters.”
Well. Perhaps the 56 journalists murdered were coincidental victims of amazingly random violence that the former KGB operative’s police state is powerless to stop. It has, however, been “proven,” perhaps even to Trump’s exacting standards, that Putin has dismembered Ukraine. (Counts one and two at the 1946 Nuremberg trials concerned conspiracy to wage, and waging, aggressive war.)
Until now, Trump’s ever-more-exotic effusions have had an almost numbing effect. Almost. But by his embrace of Putin, and by postulating a slanderous moral equivalence — Putin kills journalists, the United States kills terrorists, what’s the big deal, or the difference? — Trump has forced conservatives to recognize their immediate priority.
the conservatives did not do much when they got there now they are selling us to obama.
And I no longer call them conservatives.....I call them traitors
I suggest George wil look at king o and minions and billary and the RINOS...oh he is one..I get it....before he knocks us Americans who get what Trump is saying!
Cult Trumptards are claiming conservative, claiming tea party affiliation and yet being led by the blow hard, Jim Jones of this years pres. candidates these alleged consveratives and tea party folks are drinking the foul mouth, classless proven progressive liberal as if they were on the Obama Cult bandwagon of 2008 and 2012, oopsie JUST LIKE THEIR CHOSEN FOOL DONALD TRUMP. me thinks we had a lot of Obama voters in 2008 and 2012, because there is no other explanation in the world for why they would be drinking this man's kool aid. And you are putting the future supreme court judge picks in this man's hand DEAR LORD what cliff have you all fallen off of. p.s. no fan of
George Wills after all he is the moderate of the establishment big time. But he is right here if conservatives who allegedly espouse PRINCIPLES that are conservative are supporting Donald trump I want NO PART OF THAT CONSERVATIVE PARTY OR TEA PARTY, just as I have no use for the establishment Republican party, because it will be nothing other than a FRAUD.
Then, who do you support?
That and his wife worry me greatly.
His wife has us all worried. She (and her father) has been so open and active with the OWG agenda, and from some reports, so has Cruz himself. YES, we are all worried about that, and the fact that DC is not against Cruz at all so it seems, but only against Trump the truth speaker.
But let's keep vetting them all folks, this is how things get exposed and that is what we need - EXPOSURE !
WE are lucky with Trump since his life all along has been an open book. But the others have secrets.
Now had Cruz's father obtained his American citizenship ( no one knows if he did or didn't) when he was 18 and escaped to Texas, he'd have made his son a NBC. That one paper would have made all the difference in the world because the parents only need to be CITIZENS, not NBC. Parents need to be CITIZENS when the child is born, but they do not need to be NBC themselves.
I believe this would make Jindal a NBC since both of his India born parents came here and became citizens early on. And he was born here, right in our South in Louisiana. Jindal has been there all his life.
Surely Bobby Jindal is born a citizen, but is that defined as "natural-born"? The offspring of "resident" foriegn nationals is a "resident" foriegn national as well. Did Jindals' folks arrive as: resident, naturalized citizen (yet not born here), or natural-born citizen? There is a differance of three conditions here (and potentially a fourth if both parents must be natural-born for the offspring to be the same).
Perhaps the answer is that both parents must be at least naturalized citizens for their child to be a natural born citizen.
This would mean that if Obama's father never attained naturalized status, Obama would be indeed ineligible (I never thought I would say it, but....)
The Constitution does not say parents need to be NBC, just CITIZENS and does not delegate HOW they are to become CITIZENS. I believe Jindals folks became naturalized citizens the usual way most do. They planned on living here for life and they have.
OKAY! But, LBF (hope you don't mind, but its easier to type), do both folks need to be at least naturalized citizens? The notion that this eliminates conflicts of affiliation for the child to absorb, makes sense (think Obama). Otherwise, anyone could easily make the case (AND SOME WOULD), that just being born on american soil from any parents self-sufficiently constitutes loyalty to this nations interests, and must be assumed. The founders stipulation about citizenship regarding elected federal political office clearly indicates they were wary of this presumption.