home

Kasich Drops Out

John Kasich is back in Ohio where he will announce his withdrawal from the race for the Republican presidential nomination at 5:00 pm (ET.)

Trump will be the Republican nominee. Now come the expressions of shock, awe, and more importantly, the jokes.

My view: Hillary will win in November. The longer she can concentrate on Trump instead of Bernie Sanders, the greater her chances. [More...]

If Bernie wants to hang in, that's his choice. But if you intend to donate to a candidate, I urge you to send the money to Hillary, to use in the fight against Trump. Hillary helps down-ticket Dems. Bernie won't be the nominee, he doesn't need your money.

< Indiana Exit Polling and Results | Navy Seals in Gunfight Against ISIS >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    John Kasich tried to be the adult in the room. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 04, 2016 at 04:07:42 PM EST
    Unfortunately for him, he's found himself campaigning in a GOP that's since been bullied into submission by an angry brat.

    With Donald Trump as presumptive nominee, Republicans got exactly what they deserved. It's now up to to the rest of us to see that our country itself doesn't share their fate.

    Aloha.

    The angry brat was (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 04, 2016 at 04:52:11 PM EST
    supported by millions of other angry brats.

    But you knew that. So what's your point??

    Parent

    ... watching your head explode this fall.

    Parent
    An explosion requires (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 04, 2016 at 05:39:52 PM EST
    Some sort of content.

    Parent
    Well, that's only true ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 04, 2016 at 05:48:34 PM EST
    ... if you inserted a needle into that bag of hot air while the rest of us had our backs turned.
    ;-D

    Parent
    Just a guess but, (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 04, 2016 at 08:10:06 PM EST
    Bernie may be waiting for the FBI report which is supposed to be finalized this month.

    If the news is a clean bill for Hillary, she should get a big shot in the arm for her nomination, and probably, finally, mathematically, finishing Bernie off, for good.

    If the news is bad, well, that's another story.

    Bernie's handlers just want to ride (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 04, 2016 at 08:28:32 PM EST
     the gravy train for another 4 weeks.

    Parent
    I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 04, 2016 at 08:34:32 PM EST
    It's just his handlers

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#42)
    by Steve13209 on Thu May 05, 2016 at 09:02:52 AM EST
    supporting a candidate that gets hundreds of thousands of dollars a speech has made you think that all people are as mercenary as she is.

    Why would Bernie Sanders wait until he's in his 70's to bilk small donation supporters? He could have befriended the NRA and Wall St like all the other politicians.

    Parent

    He has (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2016 at 09:19:10 AM EST
    been a friend of the NRA since 1990. They helped fund is campaign for the house.

    Parent
    Can't (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by FlJoe on Thu May 05, 2016 at 04:09:17 PM EST
    you wrap your head around the fact that a couple or three K per speech is no big thing. Bill Clinton tops half a mill easily, Trump reportedly gets 1.5 mill. Assorted celebrities, athletes, authors and has been politicians all fetch 100k plus.

    By all accounts Bernie has never been a mercenary, to the contrary I think he disdains the wealthy has only a true socialist can. Meanwhile many of his handlers are riding the gravy train, Ted Devine is a well known and expensive hired gun.

    Parent

    The not being able to see (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by christinep on Thu May 05, 2016 at 04:30:11 PM EST
    that a practice is common at dinners, events, big seminars to have a guest speaker--and, often, a very highly paid individual who is a draw because of reputation, celebrity, and/or power--results from not wanting to see.  It is related to "Where you stand depends on where you sit."  

    Parent
    Context is everything (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jondee on Thu May 05, 2016 at 05:41:22 PM EST
    we're talking about a very prominent public figure who likes to trumpet her career devoted to public service and who is expected to model a higher standard of personal sacrifice receiving exorbitant sums for minimal labor from a company that has been at the center of the hurricane of controversy surrounding the financial malfeasance and corruption that led to the disasters of 2007-2008.

    How many billions in fines has
    Goldman Sachs been forced to pay in the last decade?

    This isn't Peyton Manning speaking at a Papa John's shareholders convention, no matter how much you rather ham-handedly try to spin it that way.


    Parent

    When you stop hyperventilating over (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by christinep on Thu May 05, 2016 at 06:56:25 PM EST
    a longtime practice involving high prices over the years among all manner of politicians, the discussion could get real.  Right now, this is one of the few hooks that the Sanders' group has in terms of public reaction ... and, btw, it is easy to understand that the context, the amount for anyone--glamour celebs, sports stars, ex-presidents (remember President Reagan's $2M over 30 years ago), novelists, "in" scholars--seems over-the-top.  But, that is the way it is; we all don't like the rationale for unbalanced pay scales.  As for the context: With no quid pro quo and without even a fact-based suggestion of one, why would a person not-holding-office be held apart from this endeavor (i.e., Clinton)?  Why would only her fees as a private citizen then be examined?  Why does she stand out?  Perhaps, because it is the red-herring that some detractors scratch to find?  We both know that this has nothing to do with anything ... but, during the primary, it had to pass for something?

    Where are Sanders' tax returns, btw? Or doesn't that count for him ... only for others?  Get real, jondee.

    Parent

    "Mercenary as she is" (none / 0) (#44)
    by vicndabx on Thu May 05, 2016 at 09:46:47 AM EST
    i.e. pissed that I can't make that kind of money.

    Parent
    I love it (none / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Thu May 05, 2016 at 03:49:32 PM EST
    the you're-he's just jealous defense..

    Heretofore trotted out by the mercenary scorched earth libertarian crowd every time anyone suggests that life and citizenship should involve something more meaningful than grabbing what you can when you can.

     

    Parent

    Bilking for ideology or bilking for personal (none / 0) (#45)
    by christinep on Thu May 05, 2016 at 02:24:08 PM EST
    gain ... same result ...  Who knows why $$$$$ seem to be so front & center with him?  I do know that he has not released years of tax returns as HRC has done and as he kept saying he would do.  As I'm sure you are aware, the release of a presidential candidate's tax returns for multiple years is a very common, traditional practice.  (Yep, that is quite different than trying to invent a new practice such as implying that large payments for speeches by celebrities and admired individuals in their private capacity is somehow untoward or strange ... followed by the equally unusual notion that--without a showing or even a factual suggestion of quid pro quo--that red-herring focus on HRC speeches has any basis.)

    It is going to be rather humorous, isn't it, to watch the squirming from heretofore posing puritans as the financial focus, money earning realities, etc  shifts to one Donald J. Trump.  Say what.....

    Parent

    So, let me get this straight, Christine (none / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Thu May 05, 2016 at 04:05:00 PM EST
    He wants to deflect attention away from any discussion of his personal assets by keeping the issue of money front and center?

    Of course! That has to be it.

    What a devilshly ingenious ruse on Bernie's part..


    Parent

    Yep ... whatever you said just now, jondee (none / 0) (#51)
    by christinep on Thu May 05, 2016 at 04:26:01 PM EST
    He's putting the issue of Hillary's money (none / 0) (#57)
    by sallywally on Thu May 05, 2016 at 06:31:24 PM EST
    front and center. He never mentions one without the other.

    Parent
    He's putting the issue of Hillary's money (none / 0) (#58)
    by sallywally on Thu May 05, 2016 at 06:33:04 PM EST
    front and center. He never mentions one without the other.

    Parent
    I'm more curious about (none / 0) (#53)
    by Nemi on Thu May 05, 2016 at 05:23:35 PM EST
    Why would Bernie Sanders wait until he's in his 70's to ...

    run for president? It's not like he hasn't had plenty of opportunity in the past to do so. Why did he wait so long? Why didn't he primary Obama in 2012 as he is reported to have urged others to do? Why didn't he run in 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992 ...? Why wait until 2016? Could it in any way have something to do with ... gender?

    Parent

    any links (none / 0) (#20)
    by ragebot on Wed May 04, 2016 at 08:34:07 PM EST
    to claim the FBI investigation will be wrapped up soon.  Not disputing but I have not seen anything about that.  In fact I have seen speculation the FBI might not finish till after both conventions.  Hillary has recently stated, think it was yesterday, she (or her aids) have not been contacted by the FBI for an interview.  Hard to see the investigation being finished till a while after she is interviewed.

    Parent
    Why would you assume she would be interviewed (none / 0) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 04, 2016 at 08:36:44 PM EST
    LA Times (none / 0) (#30)
    by ragebot on Wed May 04, 2016 at 10:08:56 PM EST
    You base your comment today (none / 0) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 04, 2016 at 10:19:58 PM EST
    on a five week old article?

    Parent
    my comment (none / 0) (#32)
    by ragebot on Wed May 04, 2016 at 10:30:18 PM EST
    was really a question, to wit:

    "any link to the claim that the investigation would be over soon?"

    There have multiple blurbs on the internet about the FBI preparing to interview Clinton and others close to her.  These blurbs claim before the interviews the FBI first sorts through other evidence.  Lets also keep in mind much has been made of several of Clinton's aids hiring the same lawyer.  Not sure what they would need a lawyer for if they are not going to be interviewed.

    I would bet a nickle Clinton and her aids will be interviewed.

    Parent

    To determine (none / 0) (#36)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu May 05, 2016 at 05:51:21 AM EST
    The real reason why US Government documents were stored offsite on a private server.
    The , I only use 1 device was has been debunked and will not wash.

    Also...Dan Abrams

    http://tinyurl.com/zlrygy9

    According to Issa, he believes the FBI is uncovering so much evidence of wrongdoing that it will essentially have to bifurcate the investigation into two parts.  Issa believes the Bureau will separate out, to the extent possible, Hillary Clinton's conduct related to the e-mails and server and focus on completing that portion of the investigation prior to the election.

    The former Oversight Committee Chairman then said other related aspects of the investigation related to the Clinton Foundation, including  pay-for-play allegations between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation will likely play out after the November election.

    "They are going to have to leave the actual activities with [close Clinton family confidant] Sydney Blumenthal ... and [Hillary's] push to coordinating her activities and ... the Clinton Foundation [activities] ... until after the election," Issa said.

    Issa explained that the pay-for-play allegations related to the Clinton Foundation are likely the most complex and difficult aspects of this entire investigation.


    Parent
    Your entire comment goes off the cliff (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 05, 2016 at 07:27:17 AM EST
    right here:

    "According to Issa..."

    Parent

    Issa (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2016 at 08:19:47 AM EST
    of the falsified emails and who gets everything wrong. Yes, that's who anybody should be listening too. LOL.

    Just goes to show even the Republicans who don't fall for the con of Donald will fall for other con jobs.

    Parent

    FBI isn't briefing ISSA. (none / 0) (#46)
    by ExPatObserver on Thu May 05, 2016 at 03:43:09 PM EST
    You're referencing Darrell Issa? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 05, 2016 at 07:42:58 PM EST
    Yeah, now THERE'S a credible source -- a guy whose own conduct as chairman of the House Committee on Oversight was so obviously dishonest, even his GOP colleagues could no longer ignore his behavior and were finally compelled to strip him of his post.

    Speaking for myself only, I really enjoyed the episode "Cherchez La Femme" from May 2013, when Issa's committee staff literally manufactured phony White House emails out of whole cloth, and then spoon-fed them to Jonathan Karl, that credulous stenographer masquerading as an ABC News Washington correspondent, who then dutifully and shamelessly reported on their faked contents to the nation as though Clinton and Obama had somehow been caught red-handed in some sort of Benghazi cover-up.

    As long as you're standing way out there below the bleachers in far-right field, why don't you also quote Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert?

    LOL.

    Parent

    The truth (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 04, 2016 at 08:39:57 PM EST
    is even in the unlikely event something did happen Bernie still would not get nominated. Biden would likely be nominated.

    Parent
    Silliness (none / 0) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 04, 2016 at 08:45:49 PM EST
    It's Clinton vs Trump. Short of a death, that will be the election.

    Parent
    I know (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 04, 2016 at 08:56:16 PM EST
    The FBI even said she wasn't a target but the white knight fantasy lives on and on.

    Parent
    lost in all of this (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by pitachips on Wed May 04, 2016 at 09:07:04 PM EST
    Is that the same thing that is happening to the GOP could very well happen to the Democratic Party within the next couple of election cycles.

    ... and see frogs falling from the sky.

    Speaking as someone who for better or worse has been in this business for nearly 30 years now, it's my considered observation that left-wing Democratic voters simply don't have the self-discipline necessary to pull that off. I mean, they can't even by counted on to vote in the mid-terms, never mind organize, engage and sustain a revolutionary movement.

    Crazy as Republicans are nowadays, guess what? They show up to vote. It doesn't matter if it's only for a special election to fill a vacancy on a district school board, they're right there, standing in line for their turn to exercise the franchise. That's the sort of commitment which wins elections.

    If you really want to see change, then you have to literally embody that change. That requires personal commitment and discipline on your part to see that it through to fruition at your own local level. And that's never going to happen, if the best you can do is get jacked up every four to eight years, whenever some starry-eyed messiah has launched his quixotic candidacy for the White House.

    The Louis Gohmerts, Joni Ernsts, Ted Cruzes and Marsha Blackburns of the world didn't just parachute into their congressional chairs on Capitol Hill one fine day. They first gained their political footholds in our village and city councils, county boards and state legislatures.

    And in no small number of instances, crackpots like them get elected to office because a lot of Democrats couldn't be bothered to show up on Election Day -- or if they did, didn't concern themselves with down-ticket races. (See "2016 Wisconsin Supreme Court Election.")

    So, if you really and truly want to put an end to the right-wing cuckoo that's presently plaguing us, then you need to see to it that it's strangled in its infancy in your own community, and not wait until it's metastasized, spread to Washington and taken root on Capitol Hill.

    Showing up only sporadically in support of long-shot presidential prospects like Eugene McCarthy, Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders just isn't going to cut it, because hard truth be told, there are no white knights in politics.

    There's only you and your own vote, which you should wield often and wisely to effect change within your own community. Because as the late House Speaker Tip O'Neill once observed, all politics is local.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Donald ... compadre ...multiple 5s (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by christinep on Thu May 05, 2016 at 09:06:18 PM EST
    I admire your determination in writing about the reality of how real change happens.  Being there, working for it, driving it ... everyday.  Thanks.

    Parent
    definitely missing the point (none / 0) (#65)
    by pitachips on Sat May 07, 2016 at 08:44:51 AM EST
    Try not to view everything through the lens of the primary. Not talking about Sanders or the divide between those supporting Clinton vs Sanders. I'm talking about more longterm, structural issues that IMO have a chance of fracturing our current coalition along income lines. Our coalition was held together partly because the alternative was Bushism/Reaganism + the modern Dixiecrat movement. With that movement being torn apart before our eyes it's only a matter of time before we start looking within. Our party has the same sort of divide - the upwardly mobile/highly educated with professional degrees represents one part of the party. The working class/minorities are the other. Unfortunately the good old days of the roaring 90s are gone and probably not coming back. Our economy has changed in ways that are irreversible - that is only going to exacerbate the anger/distrust/tension.

    This process is playing out right now in Chicago. Democratic control of government; pro business/neoliberal mayor put into power by coalition of pro business/fiscally conservative Democrats and minorities; disaffection between minorities and working class that feel left behind.  

    Parent

    Bob Somerby (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Nemi on Thu May 05, 2016 at 06:59:50 AM EST
    (re among other things FBI) has a piece up about THE ART OF THE CON: The insanity style in American politics!

    He lists, with sarcasm, all the ways 'candidate Clinton' is 'damaged'. With reference to FBI head James Comey, whom he describes as a "stiff-necked Republican nominee with a reputation for probity" Somerby reminds his readers that:

    (During the 2000 campaign, Candidate Gore was being investigated by other figures who fit that description. Very few liberals remember this fact; our tribe has agreed that the basic events of Campaign 2000 must never be discussed, largely because so many of our tribal leaders played such horrible roles within them. We restrict our small helpless minds to the events of the Florida recount, concerning which we tell ourselves the types of tales we love to hear. As a result, we wander toward this year's general election clueless about what might come.)

    And on the 'insanity, or near-insanity', that seems to have become an established norm:

    There is no sign that craziness of that general type would keep Trump from the White House. Yesterday's crazy statement about Lee Harvey Oswald has largely passed without notice.

    Of course, even as Trump is making such statements, the nation's most famous and smartest newspaper keeps saying that the brilliant fellow was prescient concerning Iraq. The claim is false, but the New York Times said it three times in eight days, with barely a peep of rejoinder from the silly, self-impressed hustlers so prevalent within our own tents.



    Somerby (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by FlJoe on Thu May 05, 2016 at 07:48:16 PM EST
    always makes good points but he is sure long winded and he always circles back to 2000. He has been a bulldog pointing at the abject failure of the press for years, acting like it's the biggest problem that we face.....and he's correct.

    Parent
    I'm kind of (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 04, 2016 at 03:45:29 PM EST
    surprised that Bernie is still in due to money issues.

    He just lays people off (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 04, 2016 at 03:57:54 PM EST
    and keeps on slogging sideways.

    Parent
    Since Bernie is (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 04, 2016 at 05:56:57 PM EST
    determined to stay in the race because (a) he can shape the Democratic platform, or (b)he sees a math path to the nomination, the least he could do, especially to test his mettle in the (b) department, would be to attack Trump. For purposes of (c) to bring the dangers and demagoguery of Trump to the fore, and (d) to see how he manages the inevitable counter-attack.  

    I have my concerns about (a) through (d).  I am still waiting for Bernie's clarification/defense of democratic socialist v democrat v socialist. The best, so far, is something to do with Denmark, circa 1975.


    Parent

    about bernie (none / 0) (#14)
    by linea on Wed May 04, 2016 at 08:06:00 PM EST
    i feel that people in the upcoming primaries should have the option of a choice.  even if it just amounts to a "no" vote for all practical purposes.

    or do they cancel the remainding primaries and caucuses if there is only one candidate? i didn't think they did but i might be wrong?

    Parent

    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 04, 2016 at 08:08:40 PM EST
    think anybody has a problem with Bernie staying in but it would be nice if he quit helping out Trump.

    Parent
    Nothing Bernie does helps out Trump. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Realleft on Wed May 04, 2016 at 10:44:00 PM EST
    That seems to me like just centrist Democratic hand-wringing. Nobody who is consider voting for Trump cares at all what Bernie Sanders has to say, or what he does...Don't worry about it.  

    If there's any risk to Hillary at all, it's in continuing to be exposed on things like being hawkish and pro-corporate. And in any case, even if that were to cause some of the left to sit it out, that's the kind of thing traditional Republicans vote for anyway, which seems like kind of the point of her stances on those issues.  The only way a woman gets elected to lead a major Western democracy is to be on the conservative side of business and defense.  That's the only real defense against being painted as being soft and weak.

    And because she is fairly conservative on those things, some of the Republican establishment is lining up behind her, is planning to sit it out, or is actively scheming to run defense against Trump.  

    Get ready to hear the term "Clinton Republicans" thrown around for years to come, just as we've heard for years about the "Reagan Democrats."

    Parent

    I'm not talking (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2016 at 06:54:14 AM EST
    about Bernie talking about that kind of thing. I'm really talking about the personal destruction and character assassination politics Bernie has been using lately. The truth is probably a very large majority could care less about speeches and the like.

    Parent
    They do not cancel the primaries (none / 0) (#28)
    by FreakyBeaky on Wed May 04, 2016 at 09:47:20 PM EST
    There are primaries for candidates for other offices and probably other stuff on the ballot.

    Parent
    And Cruz and Kasich (none / 0) (#29)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 04, 2016 at 09:57:50 PM EST
    are likely on every ballot from here to the end.

    Parent
    Is this what was meant (none / 0) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 04, 2016 at 04:58:03 PM EST
    by the Kasich/Cruz pact?  humiliaTED first, and then the memorable, Kasich, the ersatz moderate. However, Kasich should have continued on with his campaign/eating experience to the west coast, where there is a lot of good food.

     Maybe, there is a vice president ticket in his future, although Trump found his eating to be disgusting--not cottoning much to human matters, such as eating and bathroom breaks.  

    ersatz (none / 0) (#17)
    by linea on Wed May 04, 2016 at 08:14:43 PM EST
    i agree!!  how does presenting himself as less strident equate to being a moderate? kasich appears to have ran on the same generic republican platform as cruz.

    Parent
    Trump needs a VP candidate (none / 0) (#10)
    by ExPatObserver on Wed May 04, 2016 at 06:09:43 PM EST
    whose unique, irreproachable qualifications will complement his own. Thinking out of the box, I wonder if Trump is considering Julia Louis Dreyfus.

    I feel that he might pick... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by desertswine on Wed May 04, 2016 at 06:17:25 PM EST
    the Kardashians as a running mate, all of them.

    Parent
    How about (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 04, 2016 at 06:11:37 PM EST
    Bernie Sanders?  They seem to agree on a great deal.

    Parent
    I've joked about the BS team as well (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by christinep on Wed May 04, 2016 at 07:11:39 PM EST
    But, I'm suspecting that the abrupt Kasich withdrawal--when he could have corralled some more delegates together with inheriting an uncertain number from other suspended campaigns to be used as some sort of leverage in platform, etc.--could mean a tease for VP from Trump.  Whatever the tease and from whomever the tease, it would mean nothing, of course.

    Parent
    i understand that (none / 0) (#18)
    by linea on Wed May 04, 2016 at 08:16:42 PM EST
    trump stated he wanted an experienced politician as vp to assist him in getting his policies passed.

    Parent
    An experienced politician (none / 0) (#22)
    by Repack Rider on Wed May 04, 2016 at 08:35:04 PM EST
    ...would be forced to tell Mr. Trump that he is an idiot.

    Trump is not very smart, but he thinks he is, which is called delusions of adequacy.  I'd like to buy him for what I think he's worth, and sell him for what he thinks he's worth.  (H/T Samuel Clemens)

    Parent

    He'd love to get Nikki Haley, (none / 0) (#34)
    by Realleft on Wed May 04, 2016 at 10:46:19 PM EST
    but she's probably going to sit it out and wait to run herself on down the line.

    Parent
    For some (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2016 at 06:55:39 AM EST
    reason that seems to be something discussed on blogs today but Haley has already said no way to running with Trump. She says she will support him but not endorse him. This whole support but not endorse thing seems to be the new thing in the GOP.

    Parent
    No self-respecting politician (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 04, 2016 at 10:54:43 PM EST
    ... would go anywhere near that potential landslide-victim-in-waiting. Oh, wait, we're talking about Republicans, aren't we? Never mind. My bad. There'll likely be no shortage of self-promoting fools on that list.

    I nominate Louis Gohmert.

    Parent

    "I love Hispanics" (none / 0) (#47)
    by ExPatObserver on Thu May 05, 2016 at 03:44:19 PM EST
    says Trump while chowing down on a taco bowl.
    What a horrible mistake---it's supposed to be "I love THE Hispanics".
    Hopeless.

    I saw (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2016 at 06:19:22 PM EST
    that and had to do a double to take to see if it wasn't the onion doing a parody of Donald. I don't think you can do a parody of him.

    Parent
    No matter what he says (none / 0) (#59)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 05, 2016 at 06:39:14 PM EST
    it will always be tough to top this utterance from Trump:

     "Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are little short guys that wear yarmulkes every day."


    Parent

    A Trump Tower Taco Bowl (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 05, 2016 at 05:52:49 PM EST
    You really can't make this stuff up.   If it was a screenplay it wouldn't even be funny because good humor has to be based in reality.

    Parent