You're right. It is funny how you spout complete nonsense and can't back it up. It makes it really easy for everyone to laugh at your ass

If it's against use of personal money as well as donations then probably a good thing. Otherwise it's not very impressive for the richest people to be against donations.

Does the president have any real power on this sort of stuff?

You spent months telling us that no matter what Trump says we shouldn't believe he will actually do it. But this we would take as gospel? Three sigma bot ring analysis at work I guess

Not really. As I've said, watching you get your ass kicked in multiple forums at the same time is enjoyable. You just aren't worth arguing with, it gets tiresome laughing at your stupid logic. You aren't intelligent and watching you try to desperately to come across so is kind of sad.

I guess you just like spending your time arguing on internet forums trying desperately to change the opinions of a few people in this world. Good luck with that, homie.

What are you talking about?

It didn't lead to Obama. Obama was in no way shape or form the reason for Trump.

Oh wait, I forgot you just change what you're saying randomly.

Dude, we don't need to rely on other people for our opinions on Trump. We can see him saying the same crazy ass, borderline evil, **** over and over again.

In most years I think there's very little practical difference between candidates. But I think this is the first time in awhile that there's been someone who flat out days they're going to commit war crimes and other unconstitutional things. And who justifies it by saying he'll change the law.

Are we losing anyone else besides Ikes, gambool with a Trump win?

What were the bets? Perma and avatar switch or both perma?

Trump getting a majority of delegates but somehow dying before officially being nominated is a win for ikes, right?

Wtf?

pretty sure that's right and he has to be officially anointed.

Trump has to formally accept the nomination. I'm not sure what the point of this particular thought exercise is though.

A Trump nomination means a perma for Ikes and Lets i believe while a no nom is an avatar loss for Lilu and Deuces. Was curious to know if the list grew.

Thanks. I also thought Trump had no chance, but after seeing how inept jeb Bush was I quickly realized something unexpected was happening. Got Trump at 5-1, in August, wish I bet him when he was 12-1.

When he mentioned him dying I was wondering what that was about. That thought doesn't really cross my mind when it comes to presidential candidates.

Would Trump be nominee without Jeb? He was the perfect bashing boy, and made Trump look like a genius/competent/a real leader in comparison.

Bush was a sheltered rich kid who learned everything in a sheltered world and looked like a little boy when he had to think on his feet/deal with an unconventional person who didn't play by the rules. I've never seen someone vying for president who looked and acted so much like a sheltered teenage boy.

It made Trump look very good early on, and got him a lot of early support.

So, sheltered then?

Got a better word? I've never seen anyone in politics come across so much like a teenage boy with a strong mother and no friends:

The question has been asked about The Donald's promises:

"Does the president have any real power on this sort of stuff?"

The answer is:

Not a whole lot, and if the republicans lose control of the senate, he'll find himself in the same crack that they have had Obama in for the last years.

Bush being a bush is a bigger factor in trump doing well than him being a punching bag. It's just a reminder to everyone of the dangers of an establishment puppet.

TRUMP calls him "low energy" Jeb, seems about right.

I think this is true about a lot of Trumps policy positions. But I don't think it's as true for the national security / immigration enforcement policies - places where I think Trump can do real damage.

No one does sheltered like the British upper classes.

I am more agast at some of these guest and neocon and rhino republicans I have seen since Cruz and Kasich dropped out on Fox. Kasich is an ass. Romney is an ass. Ryan is an ass. Look at those who originally endorsed Trump, Duncan Hunter, Chris Collins, Chris Christie and Jeff Sessions. Look at his daughter.

So can HRC do real damage and regarding national security maybe she has done real damage already. Any kind of qualifying attribute that is used to assess TRUMP can and will be used to assess HRC. Regarding illegals, there are laws that apply and there is no doubt the POTUS has a lot of discretion on how and what laws to support and enforce. I have pretty much argued on the other forum that this is not necessarily a desirable situation. The main reason being that it gives the POTUS too much power in pursuing political agendas. What I observe very often is that if the POTUS is from the party you support you are fine with giving the POTUS a great deal of discretion, otherwise not so much.