2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

BorneTobyWilde

Black Swan wrote: »

"It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond," Trump said about Putin.

"Torture works," states Trump, which is also a war crime, and a crime between wars. A vote for Trump, is a vote for torture.

Putin skips torture and goes straight to a bullet in the back of the head for anyone that opposes him.
Putin likes to compliment his enemies. Its all an act.
He has obama wrapped around his finger. Now Putin is killing the rebels Obama armed. He had to be nice to Obama to get into a position to kill them.

Fr Tod Umptious

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

A lot of people say Trump is not popular with the American people. This is very true. But what the Irish liberal media largely ignore is that Hillary is also unpopular. Her disapproval ratings in some polls are close to 60%. So it may come down to an election between two unpopular figures, which to me results in a low turnout which traditionally favours Republicans (as shown in the Congressional elections recently where turnout is lower).

Now it is true that Trump may have alienated Hispanics. On the other hand of the 8% of the Nevada GOP caucus turnout that was self identified Hispanic, most voted for Trump. So perhaps they distinguish between legal and illegal Hispanic immigration and don't take as much offence as the liberals would like to believe. Personally I think it will lose him a lot of Hispanic votes but even if it does, it is theoretically possible for a presidential candidate to win the White House while unpopular with minorities, though its a long time since it happened (Dubya Bush won 44% of Hispanics ans 12% of African American votes). Non-Hispanic Whites are 70% of the electorate, Blacks are 13%, Hispanics around 10% (in 2012), and Asian Americans around 5%. A poll I recently saw (I think Quinnipiac) showed Trump nationally has 12% of African American votes. Thats pretty much the traditional GOP share of that constitituency since Nixon (though it used to be 15% for much of that period). The GOP won around 60% of the White vote in the 2012 Presidential election. Trump would need to push that up a few % to maybe 65% to have a chance, unless he can manage to win over a minrity he hasn't offended yet, like African Americans. In fairness Trump supports Affirmative Action, and I've seen a few African Americans at his rallies on TV.

Dead right about Hilary being unpopular, and her problem is that she is going to struggle to become popular
She has not a single attribute that can make her popular
In a year of outsiders she is the consummate insider.
The Dems really have it tough with their candidates, neither are that electable, and it's made even harder coming off 8 years on a Dem. president.

Trump can and will tone down the rhetoric when it come to the GE campaign, and that's only going to increase his popularity.

Black Swan

The Republican leadership in the US Senate says that they will not interview or otherwise hear any Obama nominees for the US Supreme Court vacancy until the new 20 January 2017 president is sworn in. Republican party fans may want to save this live countdown link that shows the days, minutes, hours, and seconds until Obama leaves office.

Methinks that Obama will perform his US Constitutional duty and nominate a new US Supreme Court Justice during March 2016, and not wait for the new president to be sworn in early next year. Of course, the Republicans in the US Senate will continue their 7 year role as the "Party of No" regarding any Obama nominations.

Whom will he nominate? There were telly news media rumours today that California State Attorney General Kamala Harris was being considered for the post, but she quickly affirmed that she would not be a nominee, rather a candidate to replace US Senator Barbara Boxer, who is retiring. Methinks she will win the Senate seat, and not only that, may someday be a candidate for either Vice President or President from the nation's largest in population and EC votes state (sorry Cruz's Texas, but Cal is 1st).

Then again, if Hillary Clinton was defeated by Sanders (not likely, but still possible), Kamala Harris would make for an interesting Democrat 2016 elections VP running mate? Personally, I would like for her to get more experience in Boxer's old position, and see how she does there, and if grand, then "level up" in this game called Politics.

K-9

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

In the Republican Party. Trump didn't create these people, they are the people that have urged their representatives and senators to do everything to block and frustrate that Kenyan Muslim who stole the whitehouse from achieving anything while there. Trump is just whipping them up, but the ingredients were put in place long before he decided to run.

Indeed, the article makes that point at the end, Trump just naturally attracts them.

Interestingly significant sections of Rubio supporters share similar views, probably because he has had to move further right during the campaign.

magma69

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The poll was taken in South Carolina.
Yes that South Carolina, the one that was first to secede in 1861 after trying for about 10 years.
The one where the confederate battle flag flew over the state house for over 150 years.
I doubt its indicitave of the whole country.

Nope, it was a national poll.

Nationally, the YouGov data show a similar trend: Nearly 20 percent of Mr. Trump’s voters disagreed with Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which freed slaves in the Southern states during the Civil War. Only 5 percent of Mr. Rubio’s voters share this view.

Colonialboy

Black Swan wrote: »

The Republican leadership in the US Senate says that they will not interview or otherwise hear any Obama nominees for the US Supreme Court vacancy until the new 20 January 2017 president is sworn in. Republican party fans may want to save this live countdown link that shows the days, minutes, hours, and seconds until Obama leaves office.

Methinks that Obama will perform his US Constitutional duty and nominate a new US Supreme Court Justice during March 2016, and not wait for the new president to be sworn in early next year. Of course, the Republicans in the US Senate will continue their 7 year role as the "Party of No" regarding any Obama nominations.

Theres a precedent and unwrittetn rule that a President in his outgoing year does not appoint a Supreme Court judge. Checks and balances

Its been 80 years since a 'lame duck' president has appointed a Supreme Court judge in his outgoing year. Its been 130 years since a 'lame duck' President appointed a Supreme court judge when Congress was held by the other party.

So this is normal, that Congress blocks this appointment.

eire4 wrote: »

The idea that the US congress works on behalf of the American people is laughable. Congress is so corrupt and dysfunctional it has little inclination to work in the best interests and for the will of the vast majority of Americans. The US system has been so corrupted by money particuarly since citizens united and mccutcheon that it in many ways acts more like a plutocratic oligarchy.

Your taking me out of context. My point was in response to this post below.
People are complaining that Congress is blocking moves by the President.. well actually to some degree that’s the whole point of Congress. More checks and balances.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

In the Republican Party. Trump didn't create these people, they are the people that have urged their representatives and senators to do everything to block and frustrate that Kenyan Muslim who stole the whitehouse from achieving anything while there. Trump is just whipping them up, but the ingredients were put in place long before he decided to run.

20Cent

Colonialboy wrote: »

Theres a precedent and unwrittetn rule that a President in his outgoing year does not appoint a Supreme Court judge. Checks and balances

Its been 80 years since a 'lame duck' president has appointed a Supreme Court judge in his outgoing year. Its been 130 years since a 'lame duck' President appointed a Supreme court judge when Congress was held by the other party.

So this is normal, that Congress blocks this appointment.


Your taking me out of context. My point was in response to this post below.
People are complaining that Congress is blocking moves by the President.. well actually to some degree that’s the whole point of Congress. More checks and balances.

An unwritten rule!!
How about the written rules ie the constitution which republicans claim to have a lot of respect for. It states that the President selects the supreme court justices?

A quick google shows that 14 have been appointed in the last year of a presidency the last one was 1988.

Akrasia

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Trump can and will tone down the rhetoric when it come to the GE campaign, and that's only going to increase his popularity.

Are you sure about that though?

I don't think Trump has a volume switch.

I think the more attention he gets, the more he's going to escalate his Trumpetry

If He gets the nomination, he's going to bombard us with attacks on whoever his opponent is. He'll just spew out attacks so fast that his opponent will be constantly on the back foot.

Trump will just make stuff up. It's a lot easier to defend against attacks that are based on reality. if Trump accuses Clinton of murdering puppies for fun, Clinton will have to waste time responding to those accusations, and before she's finished, He'll have accused her of eating babies.

LuckyLloyd

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-unstoppable-20160224?page=13

Essential reading: well written, funny and aware of the potential significance of this moment

LuckyLloyd

Colonialboy wrote: »

Isnt that what democracy is about.
You urge your represenatatives to act on your behalf and beliefs.
Sounds like your not in favour of democracy or the checks and balances the founding fathers who wrote the constitution had in mind when the drafted it. Congress was always meant to be the more powerful body even with bicameralism.
The President is just one of three pillars of the US Govt, executive, judicial and legislative.

Obamas in for a rough few months, he will get blocked on appointing replacement to the supreme court for Scalia.
The first major thing Trump will do is get to appoint a Supreme court judge... now thats huge.

Yes, you are entitled to block every move a President makes. When that decision is due to spitefulness and racism and is a product of an express intention to end bi partisanship however, I will mock it.

By all means block Obama's qualified and clean appointee. The Dems will turn out in droves and deliver a crushing defeat all along the ballot paper for the party led by an Orange wannabe populist strong man.

The Republican Party and their media have manafactured their own doom.

Black Swan

Colonialboy wrote: »

Theres a precedent and unwrittetn rule that a President in his outgoing year does not appoint a Supreme Court judge.

This is incorrect, very misleading, and has been used as political spin by Republican 2016 presidential candidates Cruz and Rubio (among other Republicans) in the past few days. Please see "Republicans Invent New Supreme Court Tradition Out of Thin Air." For example, Republican Ronald Reagan in his last year as president got Anthony Kennedy confirmed and sworn in as a US Supreme Court Justice 18 February 1988. Like Obama, Reagan was in his last year of his 2nd term in office, and 1988 was an election year. The fact that it does not happen very often is NOT a "precedent," rather a coincidence that Justices did not die often in presidential election years.

JPNelsforearm

Black Swan wrote: »

This is incorrect, very misleading, and has been used as political spin by Republican 2016 presidential candidates Cruz and Rubio (among other Republicans) in the past few days. Please see "Republicans Invent New Supreme Court Tradition Out of Thin Air." For example, Republican Ronald Reagan in his last year as president got Anthony Kennedy confirmed and sworn in as a US Supreme Court Justice 18 February 1988. Like Obama, Reagan was in his last year of his 2nd term in office, and 1988 was an election year. The fact that it does not happen very often is NOT a "precedent," rather a coincidence that Justices did not die often in presidential election years.

[imghttp://www.achievement.org/achievers/ken0/large/ken0-004.jpg[/img]

He was nominated in '87 though, so its not quite the "last year" that you are portraying it as, and only after the Democrats had blocked Bork iirc.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

The Republican leadership in the US Senate says that they will not interview or otherwise hear any Obama nominees for the US Supreme Court vacancy until the new 20 January 2017 president is sworn in. Republican party fans may want to save this live countdown link that shows the days, minutes, hours, and seconds until Obama leaves office.

Methinks that Obama will perform his US Constitutional duty and nominate a new US Supreme Court Justice during March 2016, and not wait for the new president to be sworn in early next year. Of course, the Republicans in the US Senate will continue their 7 year role as the "Party of No" regarding any Obama nominations.

Whom will he nominate? There were telly news media rumours today that California State Attorney General Kamala Harris was being considered for the post, but she quickly affirmed that she would not be a nominee, rather a candidate to replace US Senator Barbara Boxer, who is retiring. Methinks she will win the Senate seat, and not only that, may someday be a candidate for either Vice President or President from the nation's largest in population and EC votes state (sorry Cruz's Texas, but Cal is 1st).

Then again, if Hillary Clinton was defeated by Sanders (not likely, but still possible), Kamala Harris would make for an interesting Democrat 2016 elections VP running mate? Personally, I would like for her to get more experience in Boxer's old position, and see how she does there, and if grand, then "level up" in this game called Politics.

I been hearing a lot of chatter these past few days of possibly nominating Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval, a moderate republican and former US District Court judge and state Attorney General, for the SCOTUS. He’s pro-choice, friendly towards environmental activism, implemented ObamaCare in his state, believes in same-sex marriage, and is sympathetic to both sides of the immigration issue.

I think it would be a masterful strategic stroke on Obama’s part to nominate him. If the republican controlled Senate failed to confirm him it would make them appear unwilling to compromise, and might cost them Senate control this November.

Personally, I think Obama will nominate Loretta Lynch, right after she hands down an indictment against Hillary Clinton, and thus opening the door to a Biden/Warren run.

jobbridge4life

Amerika wrote: »

I think it would be a masterful strategic stroke on Obama’s part to nominate him. If the republican controlled Senate failed to confirm him it would make them appear unwilling to compromise, and might cost them Senate control this November.

... appear unwilling? They have openly stated that they are unwilling to compromise.

Colonialboy

20Cent wrote: »

A quick google shows that 14 have been appointed in the last year of a presidency the last one was 1988.

He was nominated in 1987, as replacment for someone who retired in June of 1987, took office in 88 and Reagan left the presidency in 89.
Just cos the appointment was in the last year the hearings and nomination would have been 2 years out.

Obama is looking to nominate, have hearings and appoint all in the last year of his presidency. Is 80 years since that was done and 130 under a excutive/legislative divide.

Dont believe everything you google.

Colonialboy

Black Swan wrote: »

This is incorrect, very misleading, and has been used as political spin by Republican 2016 presidential candidates Cruz and Rubio (among other Republicans) in the past few days. Please see "Republicans Invent New Supreme Court Tradition Out of Thin Air." For example, Republican Ronald Reagan in his last year as president got Anthony Kennedy confirmed and sworn in as a US Supreme Court Justice 18 February 1988. Like Obama, Reagan was in his last year of his 2nd term in office, and 1988 was an election year. The fact that it does not happen very often is NOT a "precedent," rather a coincidence that Justices did not die often in presidential election years.

ditto for you ..

Colonialboy wrote: »

He was nominated in 1987, as replacment for someone who retired in June of 1987, took office in 88 and Reagan left the presidency in 89.
Just cos the appointment was in the last year the hearings and nomination would have been 2 years out.

Obama is looking to nominate, have hearings and appoint all in the last year of his presidency. Is 80 years since that was done and 130 under a excutive/legislative divide.

Dont believe everything you google.

Fr Tod Umptious

Amerika wrote: »

I been hearing a lot of chatter these past few days of possibly nominating Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval, a moderate republican and former US District Court judge and state Attorney General, for the SCOTUS. He’s pro-choice, friendly towards environmental activism, implemented ObamaCare in his state, believes in same-sex marriage, and is sympathetic to both sides of the immigration issue.

I think it would be a masterful strategic stroke on Obama’s part to nominate him. If the republican controlled Senate failed to confirm him it would make them appear unwilling to compromise, and might cost them Senate control this November.

Personally, I think Obama will nominate Loretta Lynch, right after she hands down an indictment against Hillary Clinton, and thus opening the door to a Biden/Warren run.

That would be great fun if it happened.
That's the kind of chaos I'd love to see, just for the sheer fact that it would be chaos

Overheal

Colonialboy wrote: »

Theres a precedent and unwrittetn rule that a President in his outgoing year does not appoint a Supreme Court judge. Checks and balances

Its been 80 years since a 'lame duck' president has appointed a Supreme Court judge in his outgoing year. Its been 130 years since a 'lame duck' President appointed a Supreme court judge when Congress was held by the other party.

So this is normal, that Congress blocks this appointment.


Your taking me out of context. My point was in response to this post below.
People are complaining that Congress is blocking moves by the President.. well actually to some degree that’s the whole point of Congress. More checks and balances.

Here is John Oliver to comically explain how categorically untrue your statements are

Besides an "unwritten rule" has no bearing on the constitution, which is written clearly on the matter.

Manic Moran

I'm not a fan of the Guardian, but I did like this line from

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/24/donald-trump-victory-nevada-caucus-voter-anger

"There are millions of miserable people in America who know exactly who engineered the shattering of their worlds, and Trump isn’t one of those people – and, with the exception of Bernie Sanders, everyone else in the field is running on the basis of their experience being one of those people."

You know, I'm beginning to think it's worth sacrificing four years of the Presidency, letting Trump win, and seeing if it starts a sea change in the options people have to vote for. It may well become time for a third party to be viable.

PopePalpatine

I wouldn't be surprised if the "Judicial Crisis Network" was another Koch Industries-funded astroturf-roots group. :rolleyes:

eire4

Colonialboy wrote: »

Theres a precedent and unwrittetn rule that a President in his outgoing year does not appoint a Supreme Court judge. Checks and balances

Its been 80 years since a 'lame duck' president has appointed a Supreme Court judge in his outgoing year. Its been 130 years since a 'lame duck' President appointed a Supreme court judge when Congress was held by the other party.

So this is normal, that Congress blocks this appointment.


Your taking me out of context. My point was in response to this post below.
People are complaining that Congress is blocking moves by the President.. well actually to some degree that’s the whole point of Congress. More checks and balances.

No I am not taking you of context because not just on this supreme court nomination but in general the vast majority of Americans are fed up with a politcial system that is a corrupt 2 party duopoly on power and that it simply does not function in the best interests of the vast majority of Americans. The Republicans behaviour with refusing to deal with a nomination which hasn't yet even been named is just the latest classic example of its dysfucntion and failure to act in the best interests of the vast majority of Americans.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

I been hearing a lot of chatter these past few days of possibly nominating Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval, a moderate republican and former US District Court judge and state Attorney General, for the SCOTUS. He’s pro-choice, friendly towards environmental activism, implemented ObamaCare in his state, believes in same-sex marriage, and is sympathetic to both sides of the immigration issue.

I think it would be a masterful strategic stroke on Obama’s part to nominate him. If the republican controlled Senate failed to confirm him it would make them appear unwilling to compromise, and might cost them Senate control this November.

Interesting observation Amerika, and if the Republicans blocked this Republican moderate Gov Sandoval, it may blow back in their faces November 2016 GE.

Amerika wrote: »

Personally, I think Obama will nominate Loretta Lynch, right after she hands down an indictment against Hillary Clinton, and thus opening the door to a Biden/Warren run.

Here we agree to disagree Amerika, as Biden will retire 20 January 2017, and Warren will not run nor be nominated by the Dems for VP.

At coffee the other day we were discussing what might happen if Hillary Clinton won the nomination, then picked Bernie Sanders as her running mate VP, thereby unifying the larger (in party registrations) Democrat party? Plus, Hillary's demographics seem to favour older voters, while Bernie's favours younger voters, and Bernie's appeal for many independents and Hillary being the 1st female presidential candidate might make for an unbeatable combination. Who knows? Stranger things have happened, like GOP outsider Trump leading in the Republican polls, and now leading with GOP delegates.

Lirange

Black Swan wrote: »

Interesting observation Amerika, and if the Republicans blocked this Republican moderate Gov Sandoval, it may blow back in their faces November 2016 GE.

Here we agree to disagree Amerika, as Biden will retire 20 January 2017, and Warren will not run nor be nominated by the Dems for VP.

At coffee the other day we were discussing what might happen if Hillary Clinton won the nomination, then picked Bernie Sanders as her running mate VP, thereby unifying the larger (in party registrations) Democrat party? Plus, Hillary's demographics seem to favour older voters, while Bernie's favours younger voters, and Bernie's appeal for many independents and Hillary being the 1st female presidential candidate might make for an unbeatable combination. Who knows? Stranger things have happened, like GOP outsider Trump leading in the Republican polls, and now leading with GOP delegates.

I doubt Sanders would agree to be HC's running mate. He's made his name by setting himself apart from the party machinery epitomised by Hilary. He would probably just rather wait another four years rather than affix himself to that which he has railed against. He would lose credibility among many of his supporters and it would diminish his future chances (what would his selling point and appeal be if he's just another suit emerging from the Clinton Cupboard?)

For the GE she would probably nom a young popular Dem from a swing state or someone like Martin O'Malley. She would be unlikely to nom somebody well to her left for the GE. Shoring up the left in the General shouldn't be an issue since Trump or Cruz should galvanise a higher opposition turnout.

Black Swan

Colonialboy wrote: »

He was nominated in 1987, as replacment for someone who retired in June of 1987, took office in 88 and Reagan left the presidency in 89. Just cos the appointment was in the last year the hearings and nomination would have been 2 years out.

You may want to recalculate your "2 years out" time frame, because Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy 30 November 1987, less than one year before the 8 November 1988 general elections, and just a bit more before leaving office January, but certainly not "2 years out."

Colonialboy wrote: »

Obama is looking to nominate, have hearings and appoint all in the last year of his presidency.

More importantly, when does the US Constitutional responsibilities for a US president end? One year before the 20 January 2017 Presidential Inauguration (in this case only, with no prior constitutional amendments, congressional legislation, congressional resolutions, or court case laws to back it up)? The US Constitution is clear that the president is to exercise his constitutional duties while in office. Do the Republicans support the US Constitution, or not?

This fallacious argument advanced by presidential candidates Cruz, Rubio, and other Republicans has no merit in law, constitutional or otherwise, and is nothing more than nonsense political-biased Republican campaign spin during the 2016 presidential election year.

There are NO historical precedents for presidents that would prohibit them from nominating a Justice in their final year of office, nor is there a precedent for the US Senate to not hear or confirm presidential nominations per US recent history of such nominations and confirmations.

Election Year | President | Nominated | Justice | Senate Confirmed
1912 | Taft | 13 Mar 1912 | Pitney | 18 Mar 1912
1916 | Wilson | 28 Jan 1916 | Brandeis | 1 June 1916
1916 | Wilson | 14 July 1916 | Clark | 24 July 1916
1932 | Hoover | 15 Feb 1932 | Cardozo | 24 Feb 1932
1940 | FDR | 4 Jan 1940 | Murphy | 16 Jan 1940
1988 | Reagan | 30 Nov 1987 | Kennedy | 3 Feb 1988


Once again, the reason there has not been many presidential nominations or senate confirmations in recent US history during election years was because the vast majority of US Supreme Court Justices have not died during presidential election years. It's NOT "precedence," rather coincidence.

Black Swan

Lirange wrote: »

I doubt Sanders would agree to be HC's running mate. He's made his name by setting himself apart from the party machinery epitomised by Hilary.

That may be the case, but once again this has been a rather capricious election year, where the unexpected has occurred; e.g., Trump.

Lirange wrote: »

He would probably just rather wait another four years rather than affix himself to that which he has railed against.

Sanders today is age 74, and will be 75 during the November 2016 GEs. If he waits another 4 years he will be 78-79 during the 2020 election year. Although I admire his stamina and enthusiasm on the campaign circuit this year, I really wonder if he will be capable of sustaining the same extraordinary effort in another 4 years?

Rjd2

Not a great debate that for Trump and Rubio especially had a stormer when he went after him along with Cruz.

however why on earth did he leave it to this debate though?

They have been advised very badly as I suspect they both thought he would implode magically when instead they should have been tag teaming to hurt him for a long time now and if they had done that they may not be as ****ed as they are now. :rolleyes:

Akrasia

Lirange wrote: »

I doubt Sanders would agree to be HC's running mate. He's made his name by setting himself apart from the party machinery epitomised by Hilary. He would probably just rather wait another four years rather than affix himself to that which he has railed against. He would lose credibility among many of his supporters and it would diminish his future chances (what would his selling point and appeal be if he's just another suit emerging from the Clinton Cupboard?)

Bernie Sanders is 74 years old.

He won't get another chance to run for president.

It's a moot point anyway, I very seriously doubt that Clinton would choose him as a running mate, nor would he choose her.

MightyMandarin

I enjoyed this line from Rubio.

Rubio jibed: “You know where Donald Trump would be if he hadn’t inherited $200m? Selling watches in Manhattan

Rubio absolutely battered Trump last night. Not sure if it'll sway Trump supporters though.

BoJack Horseman

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Rubio absolutely battered Trump last night

Rubio didn't repeat the line 3 times in a row did he? :pac:

Colonialboy

Black Swan wrote: »

You may want to recalculate your "2 years out" time frame, because Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy 30 November 1987, less than one year before the 8 November 1988 general elections, and just a bit more before leaving office January, but certainly not "2 years out."

I say a time span of 1987 to 1989 is two years, you say its the one and the same year, Im not going to get into that one any further.

Great debate last night. Great to see Rubio and Cruz open up on Trump. When Trump goes for the jugular some commentators say he is being a bully, when Cruz and Rubio are at it, its just aggressive debating. Either way Im confortable with voiciferous debate and not inclined to go whinging about it. I think Trump did very well considering it was 2 v 1.
Interesting discussion on Republicans blocking presidential supreme court nomination, speaking of blocking appointments,
Rubio isnt recieving much attention for blocking the appointment of Roberta Jackson as next US Ambassador to Mexico. Jackson negotiated the opening up of relations with Cuba and US, Rubios parents are Cuban and the feeling is for personal reasons he is blocking her appointment. Good material for president ?

Amazing that Trump is still self-funding his campaign, whilst the others are surrounded by lobbyists.

Super Tuesday.. think it will be Super Trumpday..