2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Billy86

Actually, Trump is the complete opposite of Hitler. One built walls to keep people inside, the other is looking to build a wall to keep other outside.

They do have just a tiny bit of a crossover in their rhetoric mind - extreme nationalism, disdain for the disabled, loud angry and animated speeches, talk of 'rebuilding' and 'broken' nation, blaming the state of affairs on minorities, the list goes on...

He also wants to get rid of the J1 student visa, one of the ways dodgy foreigners of questionable legality come into the country and take jobs from the locals, while probably defrauding welfare. :pac:

Inquitus

Billy86 wrote: »

He also wants to get rid of the J1 student visa, one of the ways dodgy foreigners of questionable legality come into the country and take jobs from the locals, while probably defrauding welfare. :pac:

E.g. Cruz the Canadian trying to take his job of President

Billy86

Inquitus wrote: »

E.g. Cruz the Canadian trying to take his job of President

That might have to do with the feds catching wind of his infamous serial killer past, though.

That some of the murders took place before Cruz was born is inconsequential, he just know how to cover his tracks well.

Overheal

Seems the Washington Post is losing its impartiality in a big way.

In what has to be some kind of record, the Washington Post ran 16 negative stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours, between roughly 10:20 PM EST Sunday, March 6, to 3:54 PM EST Monday, March 7—a window that includes the crucial Democratic debate in Flint, Michigan, and the next morning’s spin:
March 6, 10:20 PM: Bernie Sanders Pledges the US Won’t Be No. 1 in Incarceration. He’ll Need to Release Lots of Criminals
March 7, 12:39 AM: Clinton Is Running for President. Sanders Is Doing Something Else
March 7, 4:04 AM: This Is Huge: Drumpf, Sanders Both Using Same Catchphrase
March 7, 4:49 AM: Mental Health Patients to Bernie Sanders: Don’t Compare Us to the GOP Candidates
March 7, 6:00 AM: ‘Excuse Me, I’m Talking’: Bernie Sanders Shuts Down Hillary Clinton, Repeatedly
March 7, 9:24 AM: Bernie Sanders’s Two Big Lies About the Global Economy
March 7, 8:25 AM: Five Reasons Bernie Sanders Lost Last Night’s Democratic Debate
March 7, 8:44 AM: An Awkward Reality for Bernie Sanders: A Strategy Focused on Whiter States
March 7, 8:44 AM: Bernie Sanders Says White People Don’t Know What It’s Like to Live in a ‘Ghetto.’ About That…
March 7, 11:49 AM: The NRA Just Praised Bernie Sanders — and Did Him No Favors in Doing So
March 7, 12:55 PM: Even Bernie Sanders Can Beat Donald Drumpf
March 7, 1:08 PM: What Bernie Sanders Still Doesn’t Get About Arguing With Hillary Clinton
March 7, 1:44 PM: Why Obama Says Bank Reform Is a Success but Bernie Sanders Says It’s a Failure
March 7, 2:16 PM: Here’s Something Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders Have in Common: And the Piece of the Argument That Bernie Doesn’t Get Quite Right.
March 7, 3:31 PM: ‘Excuse Me!’: Bernie Sanders Doesn’t Know How to Talk About Black People
March 7, 3:54 PM: And the Most Partisan Senator of 2015 Is … Bernie Sanders!
All of these posts paint his candidacy in a negative light, mainly by advancing the narrative that he’s a clueless white man incapable of winning over people of color or speaking to women. Even the one article about Sanders beating Drumpf implies this is somehow a surprise—despite the fact that Sanders consistently out-polls Hillary Clinton against the New York businessman.
There were two posts in this time frame that one could consider neutral: “These Academics Say Bernie Sanders’ College Plan Will Be a Boon for African-American Students, Will It?” and “Democratic Debate: Clinton, Sanders Spar Over Fracking, Gun Control, Trade and Jobs.” None could be read as positive.
While the headlines don’t necessarily reflect all the nuances of the text, as I’ve noted before, only 40 percent of the public reads past the headlines, so how a story is labeled is just as important, if not more so, than the substance of the story itself.
The Washington Post was sold in 2013 to libertarian Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who is worth approximately $49.8 billion.
Despite being ideologically opposed to the Democratic Party (at least in principle), Bezos has enjoyed friendly ties with both the Obama administration and the CIA. As Michael Oman-Reagan notes, Amazon was awarded a $16.5 million contract with the State Department the last year Clinton ran it. Amazon also has over $600 million in contracts with the Central Intelligence Agency, an organization Sanders said he wanted to abolish in 1974, and still says he “had a lot of problems with.” FAIR has previously criticized the Washington Post for failing to disclose, when reporting on tech giant Uber, that Bezos also owns more than $1 billion in Uber stock.
The Washington Post’s editorial stance has been staunchly anti-Sanders, though the paper contends that its editorial board is entirely independent of both Bezos and the paper’s news reporting.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/

Black Swan

With 1,237 delegates to win the Republican nomination for president, Cruz (312) is not that far behind Trump (425) at this reporting hour (6.45PM PST). Of course this may change with today's (Tuesday) primaries. It would appear that the other two establishment GOP candidates (Kasich and Rubio) may be drawing delegates away from GOP establishment Cruz rather than outsider Trump. If both of them were to drop out, and their delegates moved to Cruz, the difference between Trump and Cruz would not be meaningful today. But there's still a long way to go to reach 1,237.

Amazingfun

Wonderful night for Trump, really enjoyed his rubbing Mitt Romney's face in his array of still-available Trump products during the presser, lol.

Right now, I am watching a very uncomfortable Wassermann-Schultz try and spin Hillary's disastrous results in Michigan.....yes, it's worth the loss of beauty sleep

BoJack Horseman

Michigan has felt the Bern..... despite Clinton having a good lead in opinion polls.

Meanwhile Trump continues with his march forward.

LuckyLloyd

Good post on the reality of Bernie's chances:

BobJoeJim wrote: »

He doesn't need particularly massive victory in any of the really big states, if he manages to wafflecrush enough smaller ones along the way. If we assume that the 538 delegate tracker is reasonable enough of an approximation of the *relative* demographics of each state, then going forward from tonight he'll need to beat their "targets" by just over 6% in order to be caught up in pledged delegates by the end. Here's what 6.2% above the "target" looks like in the ten remaining states with the most delegates, presented as a share of the total available delegates (so basically share of the vote):

State         	Available	Vote Share
California    	475	53.5%
New York      	247	53.8%
Florida       	214	48.7%
Pennsylvania  	189	54.0%
Illinois      	156	48.4%
Ohio          	143	53.5%
New Jersey    	126	51.5%
North Carolina	107	49.7%
Washington    	101	62.1%
Maryland      	95	47.0%

Looks pretty good, right? He only has to win 6 of the 10, and the margins in those 6 are all small (except Washington, where a 24 point win isn't crazy, and would pretty much have to happen if he's actually on a path to 50% of all pledged delegates).

The problems, however, are twofold. First, this does only get him to 50% of the pledged delegates, so in this scenario super delegates actually would matter, and it's not a lock he'll win more than half of them, although he would certainly have a huge lead in "states won" and all the "momentum", so there would be pressure in his favor. I'm not particuarly optimistic it would be enough though.

Second, in addition to the numbers above, this projection also includes results in 24 other states and territories... and calls on him to win ALL of them except for DC. And many of those wins WOULD have to be by pretty huge margins. To actually finish with 50% of the pledged delegates, in addition to the 10 states above, he would also need the following results (sorting by vote share now to emphasize the largest victory margins he would need):

State	Available	Vote Share
Wyoming       	14	68.3%
Montana       	21	65.8%
North Dakota  	18	64.9%
Idaho         	23	64.7%
Oregon        	61	64.5%
South Dakota  	20	63.8%
West Virginia 	29	62.3%
Utah          	33	61.2%
Alaska        	16	59.8%
Wisconsin     	86	59.3%
Arizona       	75	58.1%
Rhode Island  	24	57.6%
Indiana       	83	56.3%
New Mexico    	34	56.3%
Hawaii        	25	55.3%
Connecticut   	55	54.1%
Kentucky      	55	54.1%
Puerto Rico   	60	53.1%
Dems Abroad   	13	53.1%
Guam         	7	53.1%
Virgin Islands	7	53.1%
Missouri      	71	52.4%
Delaware      	21	50.6%
D.C.         	20	42.5%

Obviously all of this either requires a national environment where he's genuinely ahead (about 52-48) starting immediately, or else it requires that 538's Delegate Tracker be badly underestimating his underlying support in the states that still have to vote (the theory there would be that there's less parity among states than thought - southern states that have already voted fundamentally favored Hillary by more than originally thought, while the western and northern states that fundamentally are better for Bernie actually favor him by a lot, instead of just the relatively small edge he was presumed to have, and therefore Hillary's "expected" edge from the south voting early was bigger than expected, and Bernie's "real" deficit is smaller than it looks).

It's not likely for all the above to happen (plus or minus inevitable fluctuation in specific states). There's a reason he's still only at 6% on Predictwise even after Michigan has been called. The Michigan win was great, but factoring in Mississippi it really wasn't that great of a day overall. Below the 50/50 target for delegates. So it's way premature to just assume he's "actually" up 5-6 points nationally and all remaining states will break in that manner.

After getting the obligatory doom and gloom out of the way, though, the important takeaway in my mind is that a path to victory (or at least to a 50/50 pledged delegate count) does exist. It may be an unlikely path, but it's there, and we shouldn't pretend it's somehow impossible.

Hande hoche!

Good week for Bernie and the Donald. Rubio seems to be completely deluding himself at this stage, dropping to fourth place.

Akrasia

If Sanders is 50/50 on delegates, he'll have more states won, and also a very large lead in the number of actual votes cast in his favour. Sanders is winning in states with record high turnouts. Hillary is winning in states with low turnouts. This implies that in the GE, the states that elected Hillary are not excited about any democratic candidates, and will probably fall to the republicans, while the high turnout states are energised and enthusiastic and are more likely to swing to the Democrats

On top of this, Sanders is hugely more popular amongst independents compared with Hillary.

Sanders polls consistently as more electable than Hillary in a GE.

At the convention, a close contest could favour Bernie, but only if the republicans are still in any position to contest a GE by that stage. They could have gone into complete meltdown by then.

ebbsy

Cruz had to win 3 of those states last night to gain any traction, not lose 3.

Clinton continues to plod along.

Next week could see a few fallen soldiers.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

If Sanders is 50/50 on delegates, he'll have more states won, and also a very large lead in the number of actual votes cast in his favour. Sanders is winning in states with record high turnouts. Hillary is winning in states with low turnouts. This implies that in the GE, the states that elected Hillary are not excited about any democratic candidates, and will probably fall to the republicans, while the high turnout states are energised and enthusiastic and are more likely to swing to the Democrats

On top of this, Sanders is hugely more popular amongst independents compared with Hillary.

Sanders polls consistently as more electable than Hillary in a GE.

At the convention, a close contest could favour Bernie, but only if the republicans are still in any position to contest a GE by that stage. They could have gone into complete meltdown by then.

The party will do their utmost to elect Hillary. Whether she's ahead in delegates or the the popular vote.
She's currently ahead 769-552 or 58-42. Next week it's Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio for a total of 691 delegates. Where exactly do people envisage Bernie closing the gap?

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

The party will do their utmost to elect Hillary. Whether she's ahead in delegates or the the popular vote.
She's currently ahead 769-552 or 58-42. Next week it's Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio for a total of 691 delegates. Where exactly do people envisage Bernie closing the gap?

March 15 is, and has been the make or break day for Sanders campaign.

The good news for Sanders is that going into this contest, Sanders will have the momentum. Not even the pro Hillary media can cover up the fact that Sanders was between 10 and 20 points down in the most recent Michigan polls, and he went on to win the state.

Sanders campaign can build momentum, Hillary can only lose momentum. She is losing support as the campaign goes forward and the fact that Sanders is liked by Hillary supporters is a huge boost to him.

A lot of the people voting for Hillary would be fine with a Sanders nomination, while many Sanders supporters actively dislike and distrust Hillary so if it gets close, and Sanders and Hillary need to drag out every last voter, there is more motivation for the Sanders support to get to the polls than Hillary supporters.

Sanders has much higher net favorability ratings than Clinton
Sanders is at +13 favourable, while clinton is at + 12 Unfavourable

More voters dislike Clinton than like her, and the opposite is true of Sanders.

I know Clinton has all the advantages of being the establishment choice, she has media support, support from the party and the union leadership, but Sanders is the people's choice, and if he can get a bit of momentum and get Hillary on the defensive, he has a good chance

RobertKK

I fell asleep last night at 8.30pm, woke up at 1.45am on my couch, the TV was still on and on CNN, so I had a good sleep before last night's drama, so I watched TV as I was not tired.
Clinton held her press event the same time as Trump which was convenient as the media automatically shows Trump as he is by far a bigger audience draw.
CNN noted this and said it may have been done due to what was happening in Michigan.
A Democrat supported and a former Obama advisor, for the first time raised his concerns for the main election later in the year, and said he thinks Clinton is in trouble for the main event.

I am supporting Trump, I don't support some of views or his constant attack on Pfizer for their tax inversion they have planned to complete, which would make Pfizer an Irish company.
But he is not a warmonger like Clinton is whom I think will be far more dangerous on the international stage after her terrible record when she had less power.

It was mentioned above about Trump and the disabled in an above post, in a negative manner.
He was complaining in 2003 about soldiers coming home from Iraq missing arms and legs, and how wrong the war was, and that he had free days every week for returning soldiers at one of his resorts in Florida.
In the video above you see this, the ones where Clinton telling lies to justify war, and laughing at the killing of Gaddafi, which has been a disaster.

Trump will keep winning due to the failure after failure of established politicians in the US, and the mess they have put their country in, and the increased threats of terrorism their decisions have caused.

Rubio should give up, he had a terrible campaign and it is going nowhere, maybe after a Florida failure he finally realises it is time to stop.


Clinton will win the Democratic side of things due to their biased system which helps established candidates.
Trump will win his side of things due to many factors, he is an outsider, he is like a magnet for attention due to his great confident and charisma, he is not hawkish when it comes to war, and he wants to bring jobs back to the US.
The wall plays a role in being seen as strong on homeland security, with people being subjected to images of the European immigration crisis.

The Democrats have a messed up system which give the public the least popular Democrat to vote for. There is nothing exciting about Hillary Clinton, most don't care she is a woman, they just don't like her as a person. They see her as part of the establishment and the same old/same old.
Sanders would probably be a better choice for the Democrats, but it won't happen.
We had the rejection of the Bush dynasty, I think next the public will as already is happening in several states, the rejection of a Clinton dynasty.
President Trump this time next year.

Akrasia

RobertKK wrote: »

I fell asleep last night at 8.30pm, woke up at 1.45am on my couch, the TV was still on and on CNN, so I had a good sleep before last night's drama, so I watched TV as I was not tired.
Clinton held her press event the same time as Trump which was convenient as the media automatically shows Trump as he is by far a bigger audience draw.
CNN noted this and said it may have been done due to what was happening in Michigan.
A Democrat supported and a former Obama advisor, for the first time raised his concerns for the main election later in the year, and said he thinks Clinton is in trouble for the main event.

I am supporting Trump, I don't support some of views or his constant attack on Pfizer for their tax inversion they have planned to complete, which would make Pfizer an Irish company.
But he is not a warmonger like Clinton is whom I think will be far more dangerous on the international stage after her terrible record when she had less power.

It was mentioned above about Trump and the disabled in an above post, in a negative manner.
He was complaining in 2003 about soldiers coming home from Iraq missing arms and legs, and how wrong the war was, and that he had free days every week for returning soldiers at one of his resorts in Florida.
In the video above you see this, the ones where Clinton telling lies to justify war, and laughing at the killing of Gaddafi, which has been a disaster.

Trump will keep winning due to the failure after failure of established politicians in the US, and the mess they have put their country in, and the increased threats of terrorism their decisions have caused.

Rubio should give up, he had a terrible campaign and it is going nowhere, maybe after a Florida failure he finally realises it is time to stop.


Clinton will win the Democratic side of things due to their biased system which helps established candidates.
Trump will win his side of things due to many factors, he is an outsider, he is like a magnet for attention due to his great confident and charisma, he is not hawkish when it comes to war, and he wants to bring jobs back to the US.
The wall plays a role in being seen as strong on homeland security, with people being subjected to images of the European immigration crisis.

The Democrats have a messed up system which give the public the least popular Democrat to vote for. There is nothing exciting about Hillary Clinton, most don't care she is a woman, they just don't like her as a person. They see her as part of the establishment and the same old/same old.
Sanders would probably be a better choice for the Democrats, but it won't happen.
We had the rejection of the Bush dynasty, I think next the public will as already is happening in several states, the rejection of a Clinton dynasty.
President Trump this time next year.

By this time next year president Trump will have been impeached for making crude remarks about Angela Merkel's vagina, and then lying about it, leaving vice president Ivanka Trump as the first ever female president and the youngest president in U.S. history.

(note - normally Angela Merkels' vagina might be considered too crude for the politics forum, but given Trump's references to Megyn Kelly's menstrual cycle and his own penis, I think it's it's within that level of debate)

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

I am supporting Trump, I don't support some of views or his constant attack on Pfizer for their tax inversion they have planned to complete, which would make Pfizer an Irish company.
But he is not a warmonger like Clinton is whom I think will be far more dangerous on the international stage after her terrible record when she had less power.

It was mentioned above about Trump and the disabled in an above post, in a negative manner.
He was complaining in 2003 about soldiers coming home from Iraq missing arms and legs, and how wrong the war was, and that he had free days every week for returning soldiers at one of his resorts in Florida.

So his comments about McCain were lies? Has he changed his mind on injured veterans? What? There are many reasons you could attack McCain such as on policy or whatever but that isn't the route he took. So if he loves injured veterans so much why did he choose to attack him in that way?

RobertKK wrote: »

Trump will win his side of things due to many factors, he is an outsider, he is like a magnet for attention due to his great confident and charisma, he is not hawkish when it comes to war, and he wants to bring jobs back to the US.
The wall plays a role in being seen as strong on homeland security, with people being subjected to images of the European immigration crisis.

I don't even know where to begin here. It would be like Britain defending against an attack from mainland Europe by building a fence around Northern Ireland. Walls keep people out of small areas like fort knox. They don't keep people out of an entire country. Also I would imagine homeland security these days is a little bit more worried about terrorism and I don't know about you but I really don't think the Mexican border is how terrorists will attack the US. The wall is not being built and Trump knows that. He said it so he could maintain his position without needing an actual plan for it.

Odd how he is quite happy to outsource labour for his own products elsewhere...

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

March 15 is, and has been the make or break day for Sanders campaign.

The good news for Sanders is that going into this contest, Sanders will have the momentum. Not even the pro Hillary media can cover up the fact that Sanders was between 10 and 20 points down in the most recent Michigan polls, and he went on to win the state.

Sanders campaign can build momentum, Hillary can only lose momentum. She is losing support as the campaign goes forward and the fact that Sanders is liked by Hillary supporters is a huge boost to him.

A lot of the people voting for Hillary would be fine with a Sanders nomination, while many Sanders supporters actively dislike and distrust Hillary so if it gets close, and Sanders and Hillary need to drag out every last voter, there is more motivation for the Sanders support to get to the polls than Hillary supporters.

Sanders has much higher net favorability ratings than Clinton
Sanders is at +13 favourable, while clinton is at + 12 Unfavourable

More voters dislike Clinton than like her, and the opposite is true of Sanders.

I know Clinton has all the advantages of being the establishment choice, she has media support, support from the party and the union leadership, but Sanders is the people's choice, and if he can get a bit of momentum and get Hillary on the defensive, he has a good chance

What Sanders momentum? He fell further behind.
I'm not at a computer so finding opinion poll data is awkward.
However the big prize next week is Florida and it's a closed primary which is bad for Sanders.
Illinois is open but any gain there will be offset by the other open primary in Missouri.
North Carolina is for Hillary while Ohio one would expect to be but given the Michigan result perhaps not.

Brussels Sprout

Any chance of the following occurring:

1. Rubio drops out after failing to win Florida next week.

2. Kasich becomes relevant enough to stay in the race (ie wins Ohio)

3. Trump fails to win a majority of delegates

4. Brokered convention ensues and Kasich ends up as the consensus candidate a la Warren G harding in 1920

LuckyLloyd

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Any chance of the following occurring:

1. Rubio drops out after failing to win Florida next week.

2. Kasich becomes relevant enough to stay in the race (ie wins Ohio)

3. Trump fails to win a majority of delegates

4. Brokered convention ensues and Kasich ends up as the consensus candidate a la Warren G harding in 1920

Absolutely a chance, yes. In a scenario where Trump earns less than 1200 Delegates all bets are off in Cleveland and Kasich has run a classy (in the relative sense of the Republican Primary landscape ) and issue focussed campaign to date. He's a sitting Governor of a key swing state also.

But if we get to the point of there being a brokered convention really anything might happen. At that point, we enter uncharted waters and any convention "rules" currently being bandied about can all easily be changed as required to achieve the outcome the party establishment desires.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

What Sanders momentum? He fell further behind.
I'm not at a computer so finding opinion poll data is awkward.
However the big prize next week is Florida and it's a closed primary which is bad for Sanders.
Illinois is open but any gain there will be offset by the other open primary in Missouri.
North Carolina is for Hillary while Ohio one would expect to be but given the Michigan result perhaps not.

He fell further behind but almost all of the states that Hillary is strongest in have already voted.

Sanders has to win 56% of the remaining delegates to catch Hillary. it's a big ask, but he's on home turf for the vast majority of the rest of the states.

Hillary is still favourite, but she's not guaranteed yet.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

He fell further behind but almost all of the states that Hillary is strongest in have already voted.

Sanders has to win 56% of the remaining delegates to catch Hillary. it's a big ask, but he's on home turf for the vast majority of the rest of the states.

Hillary is still favourite, but she's not guaranteed yet.

What odds would you suggest?

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Absolutely a chance, yes. In a scenario where Trump earns less than 1200 Delegates all bets are off in Cleveland and Kasich has run a classy (in the relative sense of the Republican Primary landscape ) and issue focussed campaign to date. He's a sitting Governor of a key swing state also.

But if we get to the point of there being a brokered convention really anything might happen. At that point, we enter uncharted waters and any convention "rules" currently being bandied about can all easily be changed as required to achieve the outcome the party establishment desires.

Republicans are in a no-win really. After next week it's all winner-take-all and he should start extending his lead.
He's supposedly on track for 115% of the required delegates so it'll take a lot to stop him. Even if he falls just short and they go for the brokered convention he can run as an Independent. And who knows then? No one's excited about Hillary, a huge amount will basically boycott the GoP then plenty of amgry people can vote for Trump. Just winning 2 or 3 big States would give a good chance of the next president being selected by Congress. Would the incoming Congress be Republican enough to get one of their own in after a poor showing due to their choosing another candidate?

Also Kasich is a nothing candidate, ain't gonna win his home state even.

Akrasia

I think the chances are about the same as Ireland beating New Zealand for the first time in Rugby this November.

It's possible, but a lot of things need to go in our favour to make it happen.

The odds of a Sanders win will change heavily depending on what happens next Tuesday.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

I am supporting Trump, I don't support some of views or his constant attack on Pfizer for their tax inversion they have planned to complete, which would make Pfizer an Irish company.
But he is not a warmonger like Clinton is whom I think will be far more dangerous on the international stage after her terrible record when she had less power.

It was mentioned above about Trump and the disabled in an above post, in a negative manner.
He was complaining in 2003 about soldiers coming home from Iraq missing arms and legs, and how wrong the war was, and that he had free days every week for returning soldiers at one of his resorts in Florida.
In the video above you see this, the ones where Clinton telling lies to justify war, and laughing at the killing of Gaddafi, which has been a disaster.

http://fortune.com/2016/02/19/donald-trump-iraq-war/
In the September 11th, 2002 interview, Stern asked the real estate magnate whether he supported the proposed invasion of Iraq. Trump responded, “Yeah I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

Christy42

Akrasia wrote: »

By this time next year president Trump will have been impeached for making crude remarks about Angela Merkel's vagina, and then lying about it, leaving vice president Ivanka Trump as the first ever female president and the youngest president in U.S. history.

(note - normally Angela Merkels' vagina might be considered too crude for the politics forum, but given Trump's references to Megyn Kelly's menstrual cycle and his own penis, I think it's it's within that level of debate)

The way things are going I would expect that to earn him a second term. It is crazy the level that politics has come down to.

jobbridge4life

RobertKK wrote: »

I fell asleep last night at 8.30pm, woke up at 1.45am on my couch, the TV was still on and on CNN, so I had a good sleep before last night's drama, so I watched TV as I was not tired.
Clinton held her press event the same time as Trump which was convenient as the media automatically shows Trump as he is by far a bigger audience draw.
CNN noted this and said it may have been done due to what was happening in Michigan.
A Democrat supported and a former Obama advisor, for the first time raised his concerns for the main election later in the year, and said he thinks Clinton is in trouble for the main event.

I am supporting Trump, I don't support some of views or his constant attack on Pfizer for their tax inversion they have planned to complete, which would make Pfizer an Irish company.
But he is not a warmonger like Clinton is whom I think will be far more dangerous on the international stage after her terrible record when she had less power.

It was mentioned above about Trump and the disabled in an above post, in a negative manner.
He was complaining in 2003 about soldiers coming home from Iraq missing arms and legs, and how wrong the war was, and that he had free days every week for returning soldiers at one of his resorts in Florida.
In the video above you see this, the ones where Clinton telling lies to justify war, and laughing at the killing of Gaddafi, which has been a disaster.

Trump will keep winning due to the failure after failure of established politicians in the US, and the mess they have put their country in, and the increased threats of terrorism their decisions have caused.

Rubio should give up, he had a terrible campaign and it is going nowhere, maybe after a Florida failure he finally realises it is time to stop.


Clinton will win the Democratic side of things due to their biased system which helps established candidates.
Trump will win his side of things due to many factors, he is an outsider, he is like a magnet for attention due to his great confident and charisma, he is not hawkish when it comes to war, and he wants to bring jobs back to the US.
The wall plays a role in being seen as strong on homeland security, with people being subjected to images of the European immigration crisis.

The Democrats have a messed up system which give the public the least popular Democrat to vote for. There is nothing exciting about Hillary Clinton, most don't care she is a woman, they just don't like her as a person. They see her as part of the establishment and the same old/same old.
Sanders would probably be a better choice for the Democrats, but it won't happen.
We had the rejection of the Bush dynasty, I think next the public will as already is happening in several states, the rejection of a Clinton dynasty.
President Trump this time next year.

Rejection of a dynasty in favour of an ego-maniacal billionaire who inherited enormous sums from his father... Yay the little man.

Not a war-monger... no no just a sabre rattling torture enthusiast who has pledged to murder the families of terrorists... Yay pacifism.

Wants to bring jobs back to the US... just not those he could actually bring back to the US, like the ones manufacturing his tat abroad... Yay protectionism.

What a joke.

ebbsy

Re the brokered convention, I think the main thing the Republicans have to remember is that they lost the last two elections.

They will put forward the candidate that has the best chance of winning.

jobbridge4life

Now for some more words of peace from Donald 'not a war monger' Trump.

“They’re a sovereign nation,” he told Trump. “How do you convince a sovereign nation that says they don’t want to pay, to pay?”

Trump replied, again, with non-answers. “I’m sorry to press on this,” Woodward said, “but how would you grab [Mexico’s] money? If they say ‘No,’ would you be willing to go to war to pay for this wall?”

Trump told Woodward to “trust [him], when I rejuvenate our military, Mexico won’t be ‘playing’ war with us — that I can tell you.”

Permabear

This post has been deleted.