Posted on 04/01/2016 10:54:34 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A lawyer who accepts a case, especially on the appellate level before the Supreme Court of the United States, does not necessarily endorse or oppose the lifestyle or the business ethics of the client. He is arguing a principle.
We still do not know how Ted Cruz voted or if he voted at all.
Do you really want to get into a debate in which you defend the " moral compass" of Donald Trump?
The key word here is "lawyer." It doesn't matter what a person's background is, when they go to law school, they are taught to parse words and say big, long, confusing statements that mean nothing at all. They are taught to win cases not by getting to the facts and the truth, but by devising the best argument, shoving truth and justice into the sewer.
We don't need yet another lawyer politician making laws to complicate our lives while exempting themselves from the consequences. We need a guy who understands the consequences of having the government run by weaselly lawyers. We also need a guy who understands economics, because it is clear that lawyers have no clue about it.
You are still defending another DC insider Ivy league lawyer with BS arguments and deflection. Please stop carrying the water of America’s enemies. Logic facts and history apparently have no effect on you.
But Donald Trump is a model of clear thinking and precise language about matters like abortion.
But Donald Trump is a model of clear thinking and precise language about matters like abortion.
Oh, I concede that we do need a few lawyers. But government of, for, and by lawyers is not working out too well. Unfortunately, when lawyers are surrounded by nothing but other lawyers, they become completely unaware of how ordinary people are affected by the rules and policies that they set. Many of them probably don't care, either.
Also, the historical figures you mention were not lawyers among nothing but lawyers. They actually had to live within communities of ordinary people. Most of them probably had some empathy for people who are affected by the laws, or they wouldn't have come up with the Constitution as it is.
Trump has made his fortune navigating the legal maze and pitfalls that the government of, for, and by lawyers has created. I'd say that he understands very well what it is like to try to survive in the morass that the politician lawyers have created, since he has learned to do it so well. Thus, he has a lot in common with ordinary people.
No, neither the attacks on Goldwater, Reagan, or Nixon came close, for this reason: the mainstream media then at least pretended to be fair. They still pretended to be reporting news. Moreover, they still competed for viewers.
The modern media is propaganda entirely posing as “news” and as such the slant, combined with the 24/7 coverage, means that the attacks are FAR more vitriolic, and far more volumninous.
I recall during the 68 riots outside the Dem convention that Walter Cronkite shocked me when he said, “This makes us just want to pick up our cameras and get the devil out of here.” No one had EVER said anything that “opinionated” on tv as a “newsman.” Yes, their selection of stories shaped the news, but you never saw open hostility by “debate” moderators at the Reagan-Carter or Reagan-Mondale debates that you see with Megyn Kelly. No, it is worse by many, many orders of magnitude.
Except it's not Cruz or Trump. It's Trump or whatever establishment puppet not named "Ted Cruz" that the GOP foists upon us after Cruz successfully blocks Trump from the nomination.
This is what the Cruz voters just can't seem to get.
Cruz won Wisconsin hands down. He will lose NY, face down.
Will be interesting to see if Trump’s NY margin of victory exceeds Cruz’s TX margin. Wouldn’t bet on it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.