Attorney leads Facebook page to remove Trump as Indy 500 pace car driver

May 5, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The more than 17,000 people who “like” the “We don’t want Donald Trump to drive the Indy 500 pace car” page on Facebook must be very excited to learn that Trump has decided not to drive the pace car this year.

The page was started by Indianapolis attorney Michael Wallack. According to the page, it was started because Wallack believes Trump’s “birther” movement and self-promotion isn’t good for politics or America and he shouldn’t be “rewarded with the honor of driving the pace car” this year. Wallack claims to have no problem if Trump dislikes President Barack Obama or his polices, but that Trump has stepped over the line into “the realm of conspiracy-mongering.”

Wallack’s wasn’t the only page created on the social networking site devoted to whether Trump should remain as the pace car driver. The number of people who “liked” pages in favor of Trump driving the pace car paled in comparison to the number of those who wanted Trump to step down.

There has been debate recently whether Trump would remain the driver. When he was first announced in April, some people questioned the selection and were disappointed that someone who had a connection to the Indianapolis 500 or racing wasn’t selected. Thursday, Trump said driving the pace car would conflict with his possible presidential campaign and he’d have to step aside.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT