Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[jim hardy]

Questioning someones ability to do a job purely because they are of some particular heritage just seems like a text-book definition of racism.

Well, when you think your ox is getting gored... it's natural to resent that.
Trump says he doesn't think the judge is being fair to him.
Not knowing the facts of the case i have no idea if that's so
Atlantic had an article about it which i think i linked earlier.

I feel the brouhaha is an opportunistic attack on Trump by party loyals and sensation seeking "journalists" . Ever since Watergate it seems every wannabe reporter covets to "bring down a big one" ..
I also feel it was very poor judgement for Trump to speak about a case not yet adjudicated.. and worse yet to antagonize the judge. If he wants a change of venue he should have his lawyers ask for it. It's up to his legal team not his publicists to make sure he gets an impartial judge .
I'm optimistic, still believe most people are good and judges are generally among the more thoughtful and introspective among us. Judge Curiel has benefit of doubt in my book. That he's somehow involved with helping Hispanic students shouldn't affect his judgement. Unless Trump makes him really mad...I don't know enough about Joe Scarborough to be of help with that one.
Mikah is very well spoken (not to mention pretty) and she certainly has an effective mentor on foreign affairs. But i very seldom catch that show.

old jim

 

[Astronuc]

I also feel it was very poor judgement for Trump to speak about a case not yet adjudicated.. and worse yet to antagonize the judge. If he wants a change of venue he should have his lawyers ask for it. It's up to his legal team not his publicists to make sure he gets an impartial judge .

There is no evidence to suggest that Curiel isn't impartial. Certainly Trump showed poor judgment, or simply revealed his lack of character. Trump chose not to let his legal team do it's job, but instead verbally disparaged the judge based on his ethnicity/heritage, and basically expressed contempt for the court/judge. The judge took up the case well before Trump made his statement about building a wall.

He just postponed the trial so as not to interfere with Trump's campaign.

As for his involvement in Trump U - where he or it went wrong - when its boss (Trump owned 90%) lunged for bigger profits
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-university-went-wrong-when-donald-trump-wanted bigger-profits-200841110.html

The judge determined that there was material evidence to proceed with the case. The what a judge is supposed to do.

Trump formally announced his candidacy for the upcoming race for president in the 2016 election on June 16, 2015.

The Makaeff case (against Trump U) was filed on April 30, 2010, and transferred to Judge Curiel on January 30, 2013, about 2 years and 5 months before Trump declares his candidacy.
http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2016/06/articles/attorney/consumer-protection/curiel-trump/

 

[phinds]

Yes, but those are all just facts, which are irrelevant to Trump.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The Makaeff case (against Trump U) was filed on April 30, 2010, and transferred to Judge Curiel on January 30, 2013, about 2 years and 5 months before Trump declares his candidacy.
http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2016/06/articles/attorney/consumer-protection/curiel-trump/

Well yes, but he's Mexican!

I keep noticing that even many Democratic pundits refer to Trump's style as the issue. I think that is completely missing the point and it makes me want to pull my eyeballs out. The problem with Trump is substance. It is how he thinks. These aren't slips due to inexperience [some people say he is making amateur "mistakes"!]; and they aren't misstatements, and his message isn't being misconstrued by the liberal media. The problem is what Trump says and his vast lack of knowledge about the issues. I really can't believe people keep making excuses for this guy. This is shockingly dangerous stuff. Horrifying! I'm not a big Hillary fan by any means and I would love to have a different option, but Trump has gone far beyond anything I've ever seen from a serious candidate. It is really unbelievable.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Jimmy Fallon: Do you think the Republicans are happy with their choice?
Obama: I don't know but we are!

 

[Astronuc]

Public calls for Republicans to replace Trump grew Wednesday.

“I want to support the nominee of the party, but I think the party ought to change the nominee. Because we’re going to get killed with this nominee,” Hugh Hewitt, a nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host, said. “They ought to get together and let the convention decide. And if Donald Trump pulls over a makeover in the next four to five weeks, great, they can keep him.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/talk-grows-replacing-trump-convention-000000790.html

If only Hunter S. Thompson was still alive, he'd pen "Fear and Loathing in Cleveland".

 

[mheslep]

There is no evidence to suggest that Curiel isn't impartial..

Impartiality is always difficult, if not impossible to actually prove. Judges don't recuse themselves because they are "proven" to be impartial, they are obliged to do so because of apparent conflict of interest.

 

[mheslep]

Sanders a couple days ago on Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. He's about a year late coming to the plate with this:

"If you ask me about the Clinton Foundation, do I have a problem when a sitting secretary of state and a foundation run by her husband collects many millions of dollars from foreign governments, many governments which are dictatorships… yeah I do," Sanders said in an interview Sunday morning with Jake Tapper on CNN’s 'State of the Union.'

"You don’t have a lot of respect there for opposition points of view for gay rights or women’s rights," he said about countries she accepted money from, like Saudi Arabia.

Sanders replied: "Yes, I do," when asked if the Clinton Foundation's activities represented a potential "conflict of interest."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/05/bernie_sanders_clinton_foundation_is_a_problem_took_money_from_dictatorships.html

 

[Hornbein]

Sanders a couple days ago on Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. He's about a year late coming to the plate with this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/05/bernie_sanders_clinton_foundation_is_a_problem_took_money_from_dictatorships.html

Conflict of interest is so 20th century. Everybody's doing it. It's the happening thing. It's groovy, it's boss!

 

[Hornbein]

Impartiality is always difficult, if not impossible to actually prove. Judges don't recuse themselves because they are "proven" to be impartial, they are obliged to do so because of apparent conflict of interest.

Very 20th century. Just ask Thomas and Scalia. Ooops, too late!

 

[Astronuc]

AP Interview: Billionaire Koch fed up with politics as usual
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ap-interview-billionaire-koch-fed-193559172.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Billionaire Charles Koch, one of America's most influential conservative donors, said he is fed up with the vitriol of the presidential race and will air national TV ads that call on citizens to work together to fix a "rigged" economy that leaves behind the poor.

While the Kochs have supported most of the previous GOP presidential nominees, they have a far less favorable view of Trump. A billionaire himself, Trump wrote on Twitter last year that most of his GOP rivals were "puppets" of the Kochs. The bad blood reflects the tensions between Trump and some of the Republicans' biggest donors, which could hurt his fundraising efforts.

'Fear and loathing': Republican senator says his colleagues are bummed about Donald Trump
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fear-loathing-republican-senator-says-180046558.html

It’s not as if a lot of senators were clamoring to support him during the process," Flake said. "In fact, many had supported one of the other candidates or hadn’t supported any at all. So, there’s not a lot of enthusiasm. There’s some resignation and some mixture of fear and loathing to think about what the next couple months will bring given the statements that he has made."

I miss Uncle Duke.

 

[Hornbein]

Very 20th century. Just ask Thomas and Scalia. Ooops, too late!

Dang, I was hoping someone would challenge this. Here;s what Fortune magazine has to say.

Take Chief Justice John Roberts: In October, Roberts took part in an Oct. 5 disposition regarding an environmental cleanup case in which Texas Instruments http://fortune.com/fortune500/texas-instruments-219/ 0.08% was one of the companies seeking review, according to a report in Bloomberg.

Financial disclosure forms from 2014, however, show that Roberts or a close family member owned between $100,000 and $250,000 in Texas Instruments stock. Ruling on a case where there is such a conflict of interest is against the law, according to the report.


Or how about the LA Times? They have a list of conflicts of interest, (which IMO don't include the worst: too embarrassing.) http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-roth-supreme-court-transparency-20141201-story.html. The Times notes

they also aren't bound to a code of ethics the way the rest of the federal judiciary is. They can decide how much information on investments and travel to release in their annual financial disclosure reports,

Recent polling found that more than 85% of Americans of all ideologies support requiring the justices to follow the judicial code of conduct from which they are currently exempt.

No dice from the court. So much for democracy.
​

 

[Astronuc]

Sanders’ base — as represented in that room [in Santa Monica] — identified opponents in many quarters: “the establishment,” the Democratic National Committee, “ignorant voters” and, perhaps most of all, the mainstream media. When TV screens showed Clinton leading, the crowd shouted, “CNN sucks.” Uniting the Democratic Party may be a greater challenge than Clinton had imagined at the beginning of this long campaign for the White House.

A few Sanders supporters would rather vote for Green or Libertarian, or even Donald Trump, than for Hillary, so negative is her reputation.
https://www.yahoo.com/katiecouric/sanders-supporters-seethe-in-santa-monica-141203439.html

Not only is the nation divided by party, but each principal party is divided.

 

[jim hardy]

.. The "anti-establishment" sentiment has sure got the elites of both sides in a tizzy
on the right -
Weekly Standard ? Really ?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/trumps-intellectuals/article/2002580
Inside the Beltway and along the Washington-to-Boston corridor, #NeverTrump has won the hearts and minds of conservative intellectuals and the high-toned media. The dissenters—yes, there are some—make a lot less noise.

But move away from the East Coast and it's a different story. Out there, the conservative intelligentsia isn't aligned against Donald Trump—quite the contrary. Roger L. Simon, the screenwriter, novelist, and former CEO of PJ Media, predicted last August that Trump would win the presidency. Nine months later, in May, he wrote that "it still holds true."

"Like others, I want things to change .  .  . and Donald seems like the man with the courage and will to do it," Simon writes. "He's unafraid. He's upbeat. He's funny. He despises political correctness (as anybody with a brain does). .  .  . I can think of no greater antidote to Obama than a Trump presidency."

Simon is only the most enthusiastic of the conservative highbrows not mired in the East who have grappled with the Trump phenomenon. Their views cover a wide range: from mere opposition to #NeverTrump to mildly pro-Trump to recognition of Trump's strengths to disclosing they intend to vote for him.

Dennis Prager, the L.A.-based syndicated talk radio host and columnist, said when the presidential debates started "that if Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, I will vote for him over Hillary Clinton, or any Democrat for that matter." Last week, he took on #NeverTrump conservatives.

He disputed their "conscience" argument. "I don't find it compelling because it means that your conscience is clear after making it possible for Clinton or any other Democrat to win," he writes. "But if you wish to vanquish the bad, it's not possible—at least not on this side of the afterlife—to remain pure."

The most sweeping and impressive appraisal of Trump appears in the spring issue of the Claremont Review of Books, written by its editor Charles Kesler, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College and Claremont Graduate University. Kesler, too, disses the #NeverTrump movement. "Conservatives care too much about the party and the country to wash our hands of this election," he writes. "A third party bid would be quixotic."

That leaves conservatives with the task of "offering advice and help, whether or not [Trump] has the sense to take it." To find out if he's willing to learn, "conservatives will have to engage him," according to Kesler. Abstaining in 2016, "in hopes of stimulating a recovery of full-throated conservatism in 2020, is sheer desperation."

Kesler puts Trump in the context of earlier presidents. "Do obscenities fall from his lips more readily than they did from Lyndon Johnson's or Richard Nixon's?" he writes. "Are the circumstances of his three marriages more shameful than the circumstances of John F. Kennedy's pathologically unfaithful one—or that matter, Bill Clinton's humiliatingly unfaithful one? Have any of his egotistical excesses rivaled Andrew Jackson's killing a man in a duel over a racing bet and an insult to Jackson's wife?"

i guess they feel their caste system is threatened. We in flyover country just don't "know our place" , do we ?

Gonna be a colorful campaign.

 

[Astronuc]

At this point, I'd prefer Paul Ryan for President.

Paul Ryan Spoke Privately to Trump About Controversial Judge Remarks
https://gma.yahoo.com/paul-ryan-called-trump-controversial-judge-remarks-110204896--abc-news-topstories.html

I like Ryan's quiet and thoughtful comments. However, I disagree with Ryan about Trump.

I don't care for the raised voices and caustic comments about opponents or individuals. I prefer hearing problem statements and solutions.

 

[jim hardy]

Recent polling found that more than 85% of Americans of all ideologies support requiring the justices to follow the judicial code of conduct from which they are currently exempt.

No dice from the court. So much for democracy.

If they really feel that way, that 85% needs to get such a law enacted unless it's prohibited by the Constitution . From quick look at Article III it doesn't look that way.

Seems it could open the door for mischief, though .

 

[Evo]

this point, I'd prefer Paul Ryan for President.

Seriously?

Supports DOMA; supports constitutional ban on gay marriage. (Mar 2013)
Keep DADT; no gay adoption; no need for gay hate crime laws. (Aug 2012)
Private & public life inseparable on faith & life issues.
He opposes abortion, even in the case of rape.
He opposes federal money to family planning such as Planned Parenthood.
Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.

This guy is a religious fanatic, IMO.

http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm

Read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polit...Social.2C_environmental.2C_and_science_issues

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV), the Sierra Club, and other environmentalists have criticized Ryan's record onenvironmental issues, with Ryan earning 3 percent on the LCV 2011 National Environmental Scorecard.[113] He opposes cap and trade and opposed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.[114] In an 2009 editorial, Ryan has accused climatologists of using "statistical tricks to distort their findings and intentionally mislead the public on the issue of climate change" and he criticized the EPA's classification of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.[114] Ryan supports a 10-year $40 billion tax break for the petroleum industry, and has proposed cutting funding for renewable energy research and subsidies.[115]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polit...Social.2C_environmental.2C_and_science_issues

 

[Astronuc]

A review of court filings from jurisdictions in 33 states, along with interviews with business people, real-estate executives and others, shows a pattern over Mr. Trump’s 40-year career of his sometimes refusing to pay what some business owners said Trump companies owed them.

A chandelier shop, a curtain maker, a lawyer and others have said Mr. Trump’s companies agreed to buy goods and services, then reneged when some or all were delivered.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-business-plan-left-205200327.html

Takes other peoples property without compensation. Hmmm.

 

[Astronuc]

Investigation: How Did Clinton Donor (with no experience in national security) Get on National Security Board?
https://gma.yahoo.com/video/hillary-clinton-continues-face-criticism-235618943.html

Follow the money and emails.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624

Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.

The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.

A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.

I'm sorry, but someone who is a commodities trader or electronic investor does not have the requisite technical or policy knowledge on the use of tactical nuclear weapons or arms control.

Apparently several members of the board were concerned.

 

[Evo]

Severely outdated and irrelevant posts will be deleted please make sure that your posts reflect current issues.

 

[jim hardy]

Search on Laureate University.

 

[Astronuc]

The electoral map as it stands based on historical voting patterns.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/road-270-where-trump-clinton-start-race-153235002--election.html

There is probably more uncertainty this election cycle.

A lot of disaffected folks in both parties.

 

[mheslep]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-business-plan-left-205200327.html

Takes other peoples property without compensation. Hmmm.

NY style business. He compensates but sometimes not fully per that article, paying short more often than the norm.

Seltzer, former chairman of real-estate litigation at law firm Kaye Scholer LLP, said Mr. Trump’s approach to business agreements is common only among a small subset of privately-held New York development companies he has encountered but rare in the broader world of real estate and business.

 

[1oldman2]

Finally, I can agree with them both on something.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/us/politics/trump-clinton-campaign.html?_r=0

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The electoral map as it stands based on historical voting patterns.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/road-270-where-trump-clinton-start-race-153235002--election.html

There is probably more uncertainty this election cycle.

A lot of disaffected folks in both parties.

Eh, the Bernie supporters will come around. What is the alternative? I don't like Hillary but given the circumstances, GO HILLARY! Also, Hispanics expect to register over 2 million new Trump-inspired voters.

I must say, after so many years of frustration it is a joy to FINALLY watch the Rep party melt down. It is long overdue! If Trump wasn't so dangerous it would be funny.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Suddenly Hillary is ahead by 12 points in the latest Bloomberg poll.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-14/bloomberg-politics-national-poll-june-2016

Republicans are running for cover wrt to Trumps renewed call for a ban on Muslims as well as his suggestion that Obama has sympathies for terrorists. McConnell only said that he has nothing to say about Trumps latest comments. Trump keeps relating the shooting in Florida to an immigration problem! The shooter was born in Indiana. Trump outright lied about that and said he was born in "Afghan" [apparently that is a country]. He seems to have a hard time grasping the concept of the country of origin for people of color or other ethnicities.

There is still serious talk of a delegate revolt and that they will not nominate Trump.

 

[axmls]

There is still serious talk of a delegate revolt and that they will not nominate Trump.

It's a lose-lose situation for the Republicans regardless. On one hand, you could end up with Trump as the official nominee. On the other, Trump fans are already driven by this real or perceived idea that the Republican establishment (and the government in general) doesn't listen to them. I don't imagine they'd be willing to vote for someone else if the Republican establishment decided to not nominate Trump despite technically earning the nomination.

Unfortunately it's too late for Trump's comments to completely destroy him and earn the nomination for someone more level-headed, so he's the nominee barring the aforementioned delegate mutiny, and if that happens, that level-headed candidate will be in trouble from the start.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's a lose-lose situation for the Republicans regardless. On one hand, you could end up with Trump as the official nominee. On the other, Trump fans are already driven by this real or perceived idea that the Republican establishment (and the government in general) doesn't listen to them. I don't imagine they'd be willing to vote for someone else if the Republican establishment decided to not nominate Trump despite technically earning the nomination.

Unfortunately it's too late for Trump's comments to completely destroy him and earn the nomination for someone more level-headed, so he's the nominee barring the aforementioned delegate mutiny, and if that happens, that level-headed candidate will be in trouble from the start.

Some are arguing that it is best to kill the election and wait it out - "it's only four years" of Hillary. This is better than forever making the Republican party another Trump brand. If he is the face of the party, the party is dead. Too late IMO. But that is one line of thought. The other obvious thing to me is positioning. The biggest party in the country is the non-party - Independents. Move left of the tea party and evangelicals, target independents and libertarians, purge themselves of the open racists, and rebrand themselves. I think a completely new party would be great but I suspect brand loyalty will motivate many to move the party instead of ditching it completely. So this would lend itself to a delegate revolt.

I also think they need to stick to fiscal conservatism and ditch the social conservatism. That, or act like actual Constitutional conservatives and stay the hell out of our lives and personal choices.

Today, Trump basically fired the GOP leadership. He said he can do just fine without them.

 

[Astronuc]

Seth Meyers commentary on Trump.
https://www.yahoo.com/tv/seth-meyers-bans-donald-trump-123939349.html

 

[Hornbein]

Today, Trump basically fired the GOP leadership. He said he can do just fine without them.

He can. His goal is publicity, not the presidency. Trump can easily double his wealth.

I suppose the party will let him run while they sit on their hands. That could minimize the damage of having a reality TV star as their candidate.

 

[mheslep]

Seth Meyers commentary on Trump.
https://www.yahoo.com/tv/seth-meyers-bans-donald-trump-123939349.html

Meyers comedy on Trump's ban of the tabloid WaPo misses that Obama kicked the Washington Times and The New Yorker and others off the plane during the 2008 campaign, and tried to kick reporters out of the White House press room. It's nice to be a Democrat in Hollywood.

 

[Hornbein]

Meyers comedy on Trump's ban of the tabloid WaPo misses that Obama kicked the Washington Times and The New Yorker and others off the plane during the 2008 campaign, and tried to kick reporters out of the White House press room. It's nice to be a Democrat in Hollywood.

Muzzling of the press, like so many other things, is a bipartisan effort.

I think the two parties have many more commonalities than differences.

 

[mheslep]

Cutting off access to the candidate (and the WH Press Secretary) is what happened here, nobody stopped the presses or broke into reporter's houses. The reason a particular media outlet was cut off is the relevant issue. I wouldn't expect the campaigns or the White House to issue press passes to every lunatic or tabloid that applied. In recent years the WaPo (which Trump banned for a bogus headline) and which Ben Bradley ran with distinction has faded away and become more or less a political tabloid IMO.

However, the investigation by the US Justice Department under AG Holder, where it labeled career news reporter James Rosen a "criminal co-conspirator" in a warrant and traced his phone calls and emails, might be called muzzling. It was unprecedented as far as I know.

 

[Hornbein]

Cutting off access to the candidate (and the WH Press Secretary) is what happened here, nobody stopped the presses or broke into reporter's houses. The reason a particular media outlet was cut off is the relevant issue. I wouldn't expect the campaigns or the White House to issue press passes to every lunatic or tabloid that applied. In recent years the WaPo (which Trump banned for a bogus headline) and which Ben Bradley ran with distinction has faded away and become more or less a political tabloid IMO.

However, the investigation by the US Justice Department under AG Holder, where it labeled career news reporter James Rosen a "criminal co-conspirator" in a warrant and traced his phone calls and emails, might be called muzzling. It was unprecedented as far as I know.

There's reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who had her computer bugged. She says that incriminating documents were planted on it. She also says that if the government doesn't like what you are doing, you lose access. They won't even let you into government buildings.

Cenk Uyger was an up-and-comer at MSNBC. He had a hit show. The O admin didn't like it and gave MSNBC a call. That was the end of Cenk's show. They told him he was going to be "developed.". He quit.

When I was a kid the mainstream press would politely say that the government was lying if they thought so. That never happens anymore. All they are allowed to do is quote established sources. If all established sources are silent on an issue, then so is the press. Recall when Alan Greenspan wrote of the Iraq war that "everybody knows [it] is largely about oil." Reporters were jubilant that now they were allowed to mention this obvious fact. Or when Bernie Sanders recently criticized Israeli aggression. I read that this opened a "new era" in which this issue could be discussed. Who was telling them before that it couldn't be discussed?

For comic relief I like to watch videos of State Department briefings. The reporters do not hide their indignation with the obvious lies they are being told, and ask penetrating, embarrassing questions that are dodged (or not). But the State Department doesn't care how foolish the spokesperson appears. The reporters aren't allowed to print their questions or even hint at their doubts. All they get to do is report the party line.

Up until about 1980 the presidential debates were held by the League of Women Voters. The parties decided they wanted complete control, so now they do it themselves. Questions have to be pre-approved. I say that this is muzzling the press. They say that press conferences are the same way. I do know that there are obvious questions that are never asked. Compare and contrast with the UK's Prime Minister's Questions.

Recently Democracy Now! aired a show about government corruption that was so hot that they deleted the most torrid parts from their web site! Down an Orwellian memory hole. That was REALLY creepy. The originals may still be found on Youtube last I looked.

But all in all, corporate press is never going to be free. You can't mention anything that reflects badly on your advertisers, disturbs your readers, or displeases your owner. Investigative journalism is a money loser and may anger the powerful, so it is disappearing. You have to have a rich sponsor.

 

[Astronuc]

Paul Ryan says American freedoms at risk in separation-of-powers debate with Trump
https://www.yahoo.com/news/paul-ryan-says-americans-lose-000000033.html

House Speaker Paul Ryan talks to reporters at the Republican National Committee headquarters on Capitol Hill on June 14, 2016. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., issued a stern warning Thursday about the rhetoric coming from Donald Trump about the way government should work.

“We will lose our freedoms in this country, including all of the Bill of Rights, if we don’t robustly defend the separation of powers,” Ryan said at his weekly press conference inside the U.S. Capitol.

And on Wednesday night in Atlanta, Trump issued a rebuke to Republican leaders like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Ryan, who leads the lower chamber of Congress, and the many others who have criticized Trump over the past days and weeks for a merry-go-round of offensive, controversial and erroneous statements.