President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 20, 2016 10:39 AM UTC

Confirmed: Trump Can Say Any Damn Thing He Wants

  • 73 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols
Donald Trump.
Donald Trump.

Politico reports on GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump’s remarks at a rally in Salt Lake City Friday night:

“Are you sure he’s a Mormon? Are we sure?” he asked a supportive crowd. Romney, just hours earlier, had indicated he’d be casting a vote for Ted Cruz in Utah’s caucuses Tuesday. [Pols emphasis]

Trump’s broadside was the latest and most direct in a trend of questioning his opponents’ religion. He previously wondered about Ben Carson’s Seventh Day Adventist faith and suggested that Ted Cruz is unlikely to be a true evangelical because he hails from Cuba. And as he lavished praise on Utah’s Mormon population, he wondered whether Romney was fit to be counted among them.

“And do I love the Mormons. OK? Do I love the Mormons?” he bellowed from a podium.

Mitt Romney at the SLC Olympics, 2002.
Mitt Romney at the SLC Olympics, 2002.

Now folks, we can tell you that this kind of an attack against Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith is a truly shocking thing to witness taking place in Salt Lake City by a non-Mormon, based on everything we know about the Latter Day Saints and their protectiveness of their own. Mitt Romney in particular is very highly regarded in the Salt Lake Valley, widely credited as the man who “saved” the 2002 Winter Olympic Games from mismanaged disaster–a watershed event that put the Wasatch Front on the global map to stay after the Games were heralded as a huge success.

Anyway, if Donald Trump can show up in Salt Lake City to badmouth Mitt Romney as a Mormon and not be immediately run out of town, we’ve come to a point in American culture where, without any hyperbole, anybody can truly say anything and nothing means anything anymore. Not only is nothing sacred, casting our pearls before swine–to employ the Biblical analogy–is now the order of the day.

And whatever your politics may be, that should be disconcerting.

Tweet
Share

Comments

73 thoughts on “Confirmed: Trump Can Say Any Damn Thing He Wants”

      1. This is twice the margin by which Trump was ahead before Romney started urging stop Trumpers to go for Cruz . As we know this isn't because Romney suddenly loves Cruz but because he sees Cruz as the only vehicle for getting to a contested convention. It's possible the significantly increased Cruz support in this most recent poll, 3/17-3/19 (Trump was already well behind but by much less), reflects the addition of people taking Romney's advice.

        In any case Trump shooting off his big mouth in an absurd attack on the Mormon church's favorite son in Utah for possibly not being Mormon (as if Trump would even know what that means) is hardly likely to win him any new friends there.

          2. BTW, which of the final three is your preference, pissant? We know that your esteemed colleague, Moderatus, was cheering for Tiny Shiny Boots Rubio until he bailed out, now he's rooting for Lying Ted Cruz, but he's also given us fair warning that when the time comes, he will be pulling for Das Drumpf.

            1. Yeah AC. Which candidate is the one you'r rooting for? Or are you rooting for one of the "we'll fix this with a contested convention" options? 

  2. Disconcerting? 

    Must you be so partisan and politcize everything?

    Can't we all just get along on this?

    Wait ’til he sics his hounds on Hillary and us Democrats……will it be disconcerting?

    1. The craziest psycho eyes in politics. If I read tomorrow that he was a secret serial killer who butchered his victims, made sausage out of them them and served it to guests for breakfast, I wouldn't be even mildly surprised.

          2. It varies from orange to a kind of neon yellow.  It's clear his hair dresser must just be following orders on cut and style so we must assume Trump demands this laughable coloring job to go with the laughable styling. Poor stylist. Must pray no one ever discovers his/her identity.

            2. It's to match the skin tones his fake tanning solution gives him.  Sometimes yellow, sometimes orange.  So that everything kind of blends, the hair must match the fake tan.

  5. Actually the news from Beehive State gets better. The Deseret News has a poll out showing that if Drumpf is the GOP presidential nominee, Utah voters would do something that hasn't happened in over 50 years………vote for the Democratic nominee (either HRC or Bernie)! 16% said that they would skip the election.

    Trump can, and should, say any damn thing he wants.  

  6. Article VI of the US Constitution states that there shall be no religious test or qualification in order to hold public office. In his crude way, I think the Donald is calling attention to this fact. 

    I can see Utah going for HRC. Bernie?  No way. 

    1. Well here's what they found:

      I believe Donald Trump could lose Utah. If you lose Utah as a Republican, there is no hope," said former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, a top campaign adviser to the GOP's 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney.

      The poll found that may well be true. Utah voters said they would reject Trump, the GOP frontrunner, whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is the Democratic candidate on the general election ballot.

      While Clinton was only slightly ahead of Trump — 38 percent to 36 percent — Sanders, a self-declared Democratic socialist, holds a substantial lead — 48 percent to 37 percent over the billionaire businessman and reality TV star among likely Utah voters.

      "Wow. Wow. That's surprising," said Chris Karpowitz, co-director of Brigham Young University's Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy. "Any matchup in which Democrats are competitive in the state of Utah is shocking."

      Also surprising is the number of Utahns who said they wouldn't vote if Trump were on the ballot. Sixteen percent said they'd skip the election if Trump and Clinton were their ballot choices, while 9 percent said they wouldn't vote if it was a Trump-Sanders matchup.

      http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865650513/Poll-Utah-would-vote-for-a-Democrat-for-president-over-Trump.html

      1. Odd is the word. They were looking up our geneological info to convert our dead Jewish ancestors and various famous dead Jews posthumously so they could get into heaven. Live Jews made a tremendous cut that offensive shit  out fuss.

            1. So bizarre and arrogant. For all that, the Mormons have done the world a favor by compiling their comprehensive genealogies. Even if their motives were completely wacko.

              1. http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/genealogy/Genealogists-delight—Irelands-Catholic-Church-Records-go-online.html

                In most of the U.S. birth, death, and these kinds of records are public and hard to search. My ancestors have been “here” for 350 years, and then (mostly) Brit. I’ve seen people praying the field, walking marker to marker in cemeteries and pleading to their highest in their way. Never seemed to bother my people, though I can see why it would.

                1. Praying for people is one thing. It's the idea of these people believing they have the right to convert our dead by proxy, naturally without their consent since they're…. ummm… dead, and without the consent of their living descendents that pisses us off even though it's nonsense that doesn't really affect anybody in any way. It's the sheer disrespectful chutzpah. Not to put too fine a point on it these meshugenah goyim can damn well stick to saving themselves and leave us and our ancestors out of it.

  7. Against Trump, yes, I think Utah goes for either Bernie or Hillary. Mormons at least have a clear world view.  They know evil when they see it.

        1. They seem to be real good at solving problems within their own communities, but when it comes to anything outside their community, they send people like Mike Lee, Jason Chaffetz, and Rob Bishop. And then there's the Dick Cheney thing. 

          They could at least support the Bush clone on Tuesday, but it seems pretty likely that they'll overwhelmingly go for the guy who wants to make the Middle East glow in the dark. 

          1. They seem to be real good at solving problems.

            That's actually how Mittens tried to spin the story about putting Seamus in a crate and tying it to the roof of the station wagon and driving to Canada.

            Some saw it as his problem-solving ingenuity. Others saw it as animal cruelty.

    1. Yes, Hillary did rock it at AIPAC. She told them exactly what they wanted to hear – she will not support a UN policy resolution which would prevent further Jewish settlements on the PalestinianWest Bank.

      Yes, I do know that she is merely continuing Obama's hands-off policies towards Israel repression of Palestinians,  and also that her policy stances regarding Israel are not substantially different than those of Bernie Sanders. I do give Hillary points for highlighting the "History repeats itself" implications of a religious test for immigration.

      Please confine your responses to policies – especially US-Israel policies. I am not attacking Hillary Clinton. I am questioning what appears to be her continuation of policies which enrage our enemies in the region, and don't contribute to the "two-state solution" which everyone hypocritically endorses.

      1. Unfortuantely, mama, policy, especially nuanced policy, has little do with the politics of getting elected. How well received a candidate was at a given event is exactly the kind of thing that we discuss on political blogs and is in fact more relevant than policy to electability.  

        Polls always showed a majority of Americans opposed Reagan's policies and in fact were not even aware that they were his policies when they elected him because they liked him. Countless interviews with Trump supporters who freely admit not agreeing with him on his major policy statements (such as they are) show them supporting him anyway because they love his faux tough guy stance.

        Of course we like to discuss policy here but why on earth should participants on a political blog confine themselves to policy discussions only?

        1. Just trying to avoid getting sidetracked again into personal attacks. But of course, you and everyone else will do whatever you like. I've made the request.

          1. If you see Gray saying that HRC rocked it as a personal attack (WTF!?!) on you or Bernie supporters in general or in any way inappropriate on a political blog then you may have reached a level of hyper-sensitivity so extreme you might want to consider not participating on a political blog until you've managed to calm down a little. 

            1. Didn't say that. If you read my response to Gray, you would see that I agreed with him. Hillary did rock it at AIPAC. It will probably help her electoral chances quite a bit.  I added that she told them exactly what they wanted to hear. That also is not anattack, just an observation.

              I also noted that her policies and those of Sanders are virtually identical regarding Israel and Palestine. Don't see any daylight there.

               

              1. I read Gray's comment and your response. And you're the one who brought up personal attacks in connection with this discussion as in let's not get side-tracked into personal attacks as if anyone had made any. What in HRC rocked it requires an admonishment for not sticking to policy on a political blog? Never mind. It's pointless. Sorry things aren’t working out for Bernie the way you’d hoped. You’re clearly having a really hard time with it.

        2. You do have a point. Using my patented futuro predicto machine, I'll predict the other candidates' messages to AIPAC, thus covering our bases for the political implications of their policies, or lack thereof:

          Trump: I have tremendous respect for Teh Jews. Even though you people are so tight with your money, you don't give me any. I'll make such a deal with Israel. And I'll bomb the shit out of Iran, Iraq, any of those other raghead countries. :

          Cruz: I am the only candidate who wants Israel to survive so that it can bring about the end times so that all true Christians can be saved. And I'll make the sands of Iran glow in the dark.

          Kasich: I will make Israel as prosperous as my home state of Ohio. Did I mention that they love me there, and I created 800,000 jobs? Let's all spin the dreidel and have some gefilte fish. We can all get along.

          Sanders: I'm busy. I'm Jewish and I love my heritage. My policy positions are the same as the Secretary's. Now, don't bother me while I win Arizona.

           

  9. Repression of Palestinians?  Hardly. I agree those settlements should have been halted years ago. Even George W. Bush opined against them when he was president. Netanyahu panders to the religious extremists in his governing coalition who view all of historic Judea and Samaria as properly part of Israel.

    On the other side, somebody wake me up when Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Authority, and similar entities finally renounce their positions that Israel has no right to exist. These groups don't agree with a "two state solution." 

    1. Of course there’s repression against Palestinians and Israeli Arab citizens, too. How could there not be? But opined is right.

      All American presidents and congresses have supported all  Israeli governments. The only difference has been a little more or less ineffectual grumbling, shades of difference in opining, while doing so.

      I don't see a window still open for a happy ending for Israeli Jews or Palestinians.The only solution is a viable two state coexistence and that doesn't seem to be possible due to the facts on the ground already firmly in place and lack of will on both sides to make the real sacrifices it would take to achieve that end. I see Israel struggling along, making no progress towards a solution, until the demographics make it a minority Jewish single state that can't survive, then the same continual chaos among warring factions, both Jewish and Arab, we see all over the region.

      1. There is discrimination against Israeli Arab citizens that is well documented. Also, far right wing political fruitcakes in Israel have called for expulsion of any and all Arabs from within Israel. But I would not call that "repression." 

        2. Call it whatever you want. I don't have the energy to collect and present all the available evidence to the contrary. I don't even think it matters at this point which of us is right or if someone else is right.  I think Israeli policies are utterly wrong but I don't think Hamas et al would become any less hostiIe to a Jewish state in the face of the best possible Israeli policies. If by some miracle they did then l don't think the zealot Jewish settlers would accept it and there would be new Palestinian groups in revolt and outside forces exerting their influence like they do all over the region. Meanwhile, within the border of a single state Jews will have become a minority.

          To be honest, it hardly seems worth arguing about since I consider the possiblity of any kind of lasting viable peace solution to be quite put a fork in it done. Over. Window closed, regardless of who is more or less at fault. The well was poisoned to begin with. I think history will look back on the Jewish State of Israel as an experiment that failed, created, as it was, in the last throes of a no longer viable European colonialism.

    2. The Palestine Unity Government recognizes Israel's right to exist. Israel, for its part, says that as long as Hamas is part of the Palestinian government (and Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist), then they will in turn refuse to negotiate with the Palestinian government. So it continues to be an impasse.

      I like the idea of a binational state, as proposed by UCLA's Ha'Am. When, after gaining independence,  India divided itself into Pakistan as a Muslim state, and India as a Hindu state, Mahatma Gandhi was against the idea. He beleived that the Indian people as a whole could learn to coexist. Unfortunately, most did not agree with him. History has proved that "separate, but equal" never is.

      I think that we need leaders of equal stature, and people that are tired of the constant violence and abuses, to resolve this. In my lifetime? Perhaps my children's. I'd like to take my heritage trip to Israel some day, meet my relatives, experience the culture. It will still be a state at war, if/when I do that, no doubt.

      1. Your link's headline is: "Palestine Unity Government WILL recognize Israel……"  That's not the same as your saying it does recognize Israel's right to exist. 

        1. CHB – read the article, not just the headline.  The Palestine Unity Government's recognition of Israel "as a Jewish state" goes significantly beyond  Israel's right to exist,- it embraces Israel's existence as a Jewish state. As such, is opposed by many who would want displaced Palestinians to have the right to return to their seized homes and lands. It's a big concession.

          1. It seems like the real world relevance of the "Palestine Unity Government" is about the same as the conservative conservation organization CHB occasionally trots out. 

              1. Mapmaker: visit  www.conservamerica.org   .   If I and like minded fellow Republicans aren't willing to fight the good fight, who will? 

                If we don’t try, then we leave the field to the know-nothings of the far right and unrehabilitated socialists on the other fringe.

                1. I have read it. I applaud many of its stances. I agree that, for a given value of "conservative", conservatives should support it. After all, regardless of ideology, it's good sense to not foul your own nest.

                  Can you point out a "conservative" politician, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Constitution, God's Own Party, or ANY politician who both calls herself conservative and campaigns and promotes the principles expounded on this web site?

                   

                  1. I really do admire those "conservatives" who are astute and can think ahead about what their actions will mean in the future. So the web site you refer to doesn't need to convince me. I'm not its audience.

                    Good luck convincing those who, like you, call themselves conservative but, unlike you, act as if these are the end of days and we'd better use it all up by the expiration date.

              2. You're right, unfortunately. The Palestine Unity Government is history. Palestine is now represented by the PLO, which was Yasser Arafat's organization, and the PNA, represented by Mahmoud Abbas.  The PLO is negotiating with the UN,where it holds "observer status" only,  while the PNA is the de facto administrative government. Maybe they just all get up and play musical chairs once in awhile. It would be funny if lives weren't on the line.

                What would make sense is the UN, and G8 countries recognizing a Palestine coalition government to negotiate with. But nobody can agree on that first step…not even the Palestinians.

  10. Dear AIPAC:

    Hewer's my Israeli-Palestinian policy. 

    1-U.S. aid to Israel starts at the usual $3 billion.

    2-That sum is reduced by $1 million for every new Jewish settler in the occupied West Bank.

    3-That sum is increased by $2 million for every Jewish settler who leaves the occupied West Bank.

    4.  Do the math.

      1. Not only that, it's covered by their universal healthcare and the economy is top down, centrally controlled, prices set, etc. But Bibi is great and Obama's a Muslim commie. Speaking of which if you happen to be a Muslim, commie or not, or a gentile of any kind (and yes in Israel that means you too, Mormons) and want to marry a completely non-practicing Atheist Israeli Jew, Jew in Israel meaning anyone with a Jewish, practicing or not, mother, you have to zip over to Cyprus to do it because the government won't let a gentile marry a Jew anywhere in Israel. No offense. Guess they just find it too icky. It's not as if most Israeli's care for religious reasons since they don't practice any religion. Really though it's their proportional representation democratic process that gives the religious minority its stranglehold on marriage laws. Guess the religious just don't care all that much about abortion. To each religon their own priority mishugas, I always say.

        1. An Israeli friend of mine once attributed. the Soviet Union's hostility to Israel to the fact that Israel had made Socialism work and the USSR had not.

          1. To be fair the whole top down thing has been a drag on the economy and let's not forget that Israel would never have lasted fifteen minutes on its own and still couldn't without the huge funding support it has always received from both the US government (their military especially) and US Jews through the many Jewish organizations that have collected huge sums. Must be nice to be able to spend so much on your military and still have plenty of money for all the social stuff and of course they couldn't do that without us while we do without all that nice social stuff.

            It has never been possible to belong to any Jewish congregation without being nagged about contributing to Israel.  When my son decided that since all of his gentile friends went to Sunday school it must be great and he should too (he must have been in the first grade) I joined a small Littleton congregation and signed him up. I don't remember whether he got sick of Sunday school quicker or I got sick of being nagged to fork over money to support an Israeli regime whose policies I found abhorrent quicker but both of us were very happy to end the experiment in short order.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

142 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!