...fails to disavow Davud Duke and the KKK with a flimsy excuse of not knowing enough about them to form an opinion. Note that he used Duke as a reason 15 years ago he decided against having affiliation with the reform party movement.
...retweets a Mussolini quote.
So essentially continues to court racists and straight up lie.
...fails to disavow Davud Duke and the KKK with a flimsy excuse of not knowing enough about them to form an opinion. Note that he used Duke as a reason 15 years ago he decided against having affiliation with the reform party movement.
...retweets a Mussolini quote.
So essentially continues to court racists and straight up lie.
Man, as bad as Trump is, he's no worse than Cruz and Rubio. He's probably better in fact. Just watched a Rubio clip where he was making fun of how Trump spelled "choker," you know the right way of spelling it. Apparently Rubio thinks there's a more correct spelling. Also went on to criticize Trump for defending Planned Parenthood, which really tells me all I need to know about how bat#### the Republican party is at this point.
How is it Trump has no chance of winning when apparently he could win New York State? Which obviously would both be the end of the election and likely the death of the Democratic Party. People can keep burying their heads in the sands, but Americans are absolutely dumb and crazy enough to do this, let's stop acting like they won't.
Quote:
Confidential polling data shows Hillary Clinton could lose the presidential election in heavily Democratic New York to Donald Trump as the GOP front-runner’s support grows to the point of being “surprisingly strong,” The Post has learned.
The poll results, from Democratic and Republican legislative races, have surprised many leading Dems, virtually all of whom have endorsed Clinton, while confounding and energizing GOP leaders, many of whom until recently have been opposed to Trump.
“There are some Democrats who think that Hillary can be taken if Trump mounts a strong campaign,’’ one of the state’s most prominent Democrats said.
Quote:
The new polls, a second source said, showed Trump’s support, even without Bloomberg in the race, was “surprisingly strong’’ in Westchester and on Long Island, the key suburbs often viewed as crucial swing bellwethers on how statewide elections will turn out.
The polls found that Clinton often had higher negative ratings with voters than did the more controversial Trump, whose inflammatory pronouncements have often angered and even horrified many of his fellow Republicans.
“In the suburbs and upstate, Trump has a net positive while Hillary is a net negative,” one longtime Republican operative contended. “She’s more of a liability than many Democrats realized.”
Can we all just put our head in the sand for the next calendar year and hope that whomever it is that is residing at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue is not Donald Trump
__________________ Fireside Chat - The #1 Flames Fan Podcast - FiresideChat.ca
How is it Trump has no chance of winning when apparently he could win New York State? Which obviously would both be the end of the election and likely the death of the Democratic Party. People can keep burying their heads in the sands, but Americans are absolutely dumb and crazy enough to do this, let's stop acting like they won't.
How about we first see if they're actually "dumb and crazy" enough to do it before claiming they are?
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
How about we first see if they're actually "dumb and crazy" enough to do it before claiming they are?
Considering they've spent the better part of the last 30 years voting against their own best interests, I'm not sure I need to wait. They've shown they'll vote bat#### before. I mean Ted Cruz is an elected Senator after all. Americans will vote for Trump over Hillary for reasons that are, at best, ####ed in the head. So I don't know, there's a lot more evidence they'll do it than evidence they won't. I mean Reagan got two terms after all, and Trump is arguably smarter than he is, so....
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
If Trump becomes President I wonder if he would put up the TRUMP letters on the front of the White House? His ego appears to be big enough to consider doing that and it seems like Presidents and First Ladies have the ability to make changes to the White House when they move in.
This is equal parts evisceration and hilarious. Might be JO's best work to date.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
In a right thinking world, that part where he advocates a war crime would be enough to bury him.
__________________ "We are no longer living. We are empty of substance, and our head devours us. Our ancestors were more alive. Nothing separated them from themselves."
It is a strange feeling coming from a country where Preston Manning was viewed as radical, and then, looking southerly to see Trump barely standing out in a crowd.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
It is a strange feeling coming from a country where Preston Manning was viewed as radical, and then, looking southerly to see Trump barely standing out in a crowd.
I don't know if Manning was viewed as radical as much for his policies as for some of the whack jobs he had in his party, and I don't think he's comparable to the current slate of GOP candidates. As much as I disagree with him politically he's always come across as a sincere politician with a tonne of integrity. Can't say the same for Cruz, Rubio, and Trump.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
I don't know if Manning was viewed as radical as much for his policies as for some of the whack jobs he had in his party, and I don't think he's comparable to the current slate of GOP candidates. As much as I disagree with him politically he's always come across as a sincere politician with a tonne of integrity. Can't say the same for Cruz, Rubio, and Trump.
He was the target of some vitriol from the CBC et al during the '90s, but yeah, this kind of highlights my point. Harmless, sincere, great guy. We might have a handful of whack-jobs at the fringes, but Rubio, Cruz, and Trump are mainstream, baby!
If Trump becomes President I wonder if he would put up the TRUMP letters on the front of the White House? His ego appears to be big enough to consider doing that and it seems like Presidents and First Ladies have the ability to make changes to the White House when they move in.
I wonder if him and his wife will take White House items home with them after their term much like the Clintons.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
It's hard to get a read on exactly where things are going into tomorrow (other than the fact that Trump is the massive frontrunner). There's a smattering of new polls, but none that have a sample taken after the debate on Saturday. It's going to be weird, because it doesn't seem like there's any doubts about the actual wins: Cruz will win Texas, Trump will win everywhere else except maybe Minnesota, Arkansas, and Oklahoma, and Rubio will pick up a lot of second place finishes.
The seat count isn't going to swing so much that anyone will actually drop out: Trump will still be in first, Cruz will pick up enough in Texas alone to justify staying in the race, and Rubio and Kasich are going to be all-in on their home states in a couple weeks so won't drop out. Carson, who knows?
But if Rubio doesn't win at least one state tomorrow, his narrative is really going to start to suffer. Minnesota sounds like the most likely win for him.
There are a few unlikely scenarios that could shift the narrative: Cruz winning Texas by such a wide margin that he actually overtakes Trump in delegate count, or alternately, Cruz doing poorly enough in Texas that Rubio comes out of tomorrow clearly in 2nd place in delegates. Or Rubio stealing an unexpected state from Trump (like Georgia, where he's been campaigning hard lately and reportedly getting huge rally turnouts).
As I see it, here's the math for the anybody-but-Trump camp: the general strategy needs to be to limit Trump's gains in the short term, and then hope to get enough momentum that they dominate the winner-take-all states, enough that they can get to a contested convention. They'd need to then assume that on the second ballot, they make gains with delegates who were bound to Trump for the first round but are party loyalists who will vote for the establishment candidate in the second round.
The math for this scenario is still there, and probably will be regardless of what happens tomorrow. In proportional states, Trump trails the field 43-32 in delegates. (A roughly 57% result for the field) Where he's made the difference is in the one WTA state.
Let's say a similar ratio continues for the remaining roughly 1300 delegates who will be awarded by some form of proportional representation. You'd end up with Trump trailing the field roughly 790 - 590.
That would give him 672 delegates, and he would need another 564 delegates in winner take all states to avoid a contested nomination. There's about 843 winner-take-all delegates left to go. It would be crucial for the ABT movement to deny him a path to 672 there, which actually doesn't sound that hard. But I'd fully expect that Trump will improve against that proportional state ratio, and as he does that number will come down and give Trump more paths to a non-contested victory.
Ah, after all that math I just did, 538 just did an awesome interactive outlining every candidate's path to winning:
Clinton just disclosed over $40 million in Wall Street donations and that is only the amount it chose to disclose. Hm... and supposedly she's going to help reign in Wall Street... right.
Quote:
Hillary Clinton is facing more questions about her close ties to Wall Street financial institutions. Last week, the New York Times urged Clinton to release transcripts of her highly-compensated speeches to Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs.
The paid speeches are just a slim chapter of her relationship with financial titans. According to Clinton Foundation records, Wall Street financial institutions have donated around $40 million to the eponymous family foundation.
As a non-profit, the Clinton Foundation isn’t legally required to disclose its donors or contributions. The Foundation has publicly disclosed some contributions on its website. It only provides ranges for contributions, e.g. $1-5 million, and doesn’t detail when the contribution was made or for what purpose, if any.
Four major Wall Street institutions stand out; Barclays, Barclays Capitol, Goldman Sachs and Citi. Each are listed as given between $1 million and $5 million to the Foundation. Citigroup, UBS, Banc of California and Bank of America are listed as giving up to $1 million to the Foundation.
All together, contributions from readily identifiable Wall Street institutions to the Foundation total somewhere between $11 million and $41 million in contributions. If we assume the donations fall in the middle of the ranges disclosed by the Clinton Foundation, the contributions would total just under $30 million.
As with most things involving the Clintons, the devil is in the details. This total of contributions does not include those made by individuals with strong Wall Street ties. It also does not necessarily represent the total amounts contributed to the Foundation from those donors listed. It only accounts for the donations which the Foundation has chosen to disclose.
Clinton just disclosed over $40 million in Wall Street donations and that is only the amount it chose to disclose. Hm... and supposedly she's going to help reign in Wall Street... right.
