Not really.

.

My bet with ikes tho

Cruz: "We must Audit the Fed"







Cruz no-shows on vote to Audit the Fed.

By this point I don't think anyone is doubting trump is a legit challenger. He is IMO the favourite at this point with the only realistic challenger being cruz. Between them they probably have more equity than the entire rest of the field of fifteen or whatever it still is.

Meanwhile Rand is complaining he doesn't get invited to the debate despite having a "first class" campaign that sometimes polls fifth. Bush who seemed the lock winner a year ago is absolutely nowhere. Somehow people think Christie stands a shot despite him being on fifth in NH, the state he has been concentrating on. Rubio is within sight of trump in new Hampshire if you double his polling numbers, which is clearly going to happen after he fights off Carson for the bronze in Iowa.

Renouncing his citizenship probably hurt his chances

I do like how Trump fans are sticking with this "corruption" thing without the slightest idea what the word even means.


Like, Trump will absolutely work to enrich himself and his cronies, sure, track record of that all over the place. But it won't be as a FAVOR that he OWED, so, you know, that's just good management. Make America Great Again!

You reckon not? It seems that its not the best way to get a relationship started, and is it not a conflict of interest if he did become president?

I was just a bit startled by the absence of any coverage

I want to draw attention to this and Hammering Hank's post of Hillary's excellent answer about white terrorism to wonder is there something ideological about reactionary types that makes them unwilling to stand up as an adult and clearly articulate their point?

What is this passive aggressive(By proxy, even, lol Thay3r, lol Callum Borchers, lol Thay3r again) bull****?


We all remember, Thay3r, from like last week when you got the mildest pushback on this ****. Just because some dweeb at The Fix's Young Republican Employment Stimulus program wrote a thing because he had a deadline doesn't mean ****.

I mean, for God's sake, Thay3r, idk you ever posting about it but I'd bet dollars to donuts your views on "rape culture" are pure MRA trash whenever it's not about trying to tangentially score a point against a Democratic politician.

On the first bolded, I think that Amendment XIII covers it. Even Scalia believes the Amendments are part of the constitution.

Its always been my perception that the "natural born citizen" clause was put in place to deny 1 single controversial figure the presidency- Alexander Hamilton.

I'm not so sure Trump cares about making more money. He's lost a lot of business during his campaign and continues to make comments that he knows will increase his poll numbers while hurting his business, so no I do not think it is an absolute fact.

More talk about trump enriching his cronies and business partners, who are these people specifically and why would he work to enrich people he owes nothing too?

I disagree with this idea that Trump won't get much of the Bush/Carson/Fiorina/Kasich/Paul/Huckabee/Santorum/Christie votes after those candidates drop out early. Trump has gotten super popular with all groups of GOP voters, as measured by favorable/unfavorable numbers. He's seen a massive increase in favorability and a massive decrease in unfavorability among all groups in the GOP, including establishment-friendly demographics (women, college-educated, moderates, etc.), which I think that the Nate Silvers of the world have been wrongly ignoring. And it means that very respectable chunks of (say) the Christie vote will move to Trump instead of defaulting to the remaining establishment candidate (Rubio, in this scenario). That makes a big difference.

And I don't see Cruz or Rubio dropping out before Super Tuesday. They both have to know that they have a real chance to grab the brass ring this year, and that they might well never have the opportunity again. So I think they'd split the vote on Super Tuesday, and Trump emerges with a big delegate lead.

I haven't really been right about anything this election, but I feel pretty strongly that Trump winning Iowa will lead to Trump winning the nomination. I guess there's nothing left but to wait it out. And pray.

it did take a certain amount of convincing, but eventually he came around.

i think we ought to throw the whole "natural born" **** out. either you are a citizen, and entitled to every right in the constitution, or you ain't.

I don't have a dossier of his business interests at hand, but what? You don't get to invent your standard, claim Trump doesn't care about money anymore, and then ask me to divine what sort of policies Trump will implement from his vague grab basket of populist nonsense as an "absolute fact" before you will believe it.

He sued Univision for hundreds of millions of dollars for some of that lost business(odd behavior for someone who no longer cares), when he's President how do you think he'll instruct the DOJ to treat his enemies?

Again the entire premise is ****ing nonsense, which previous President's actions were because that President "owed" favors to people?

Trump isn't bought by corporate interests*, so when he proposes drastically cutting corporate taxes that is different than when Rubio proposes it.

*Edit: Also why are we assuming this again? Because Trump says so? Which candidate is admitting being corrupt?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/politi...p-fundraising/

It's not like Trump doesn't raise money. Is he just going to **** over his donors, while other candidates won't? Like I said, nonsense from top to bottom.

Alex,

Yeah- it's socially undesirable to cuddle up with racists. That's a feature, not a bug. You should feel ashamed, you're an awful person because you don't.

It made the news but this has been kicking in the courts for years.

So it's your opinion that it's an absolute fact trump will do favors for his "cronies" whoever they are but that no President in the past ever had. Interesting theory

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/...medium=twitter


Yeah that white supremacist robocalling for Trump thing...
Somewhat odd that notoriously thin-skinned self-tweeting Donald Trump hasn't pivoted away from this guy yet, right?

So just to recap the offensive claim that caused hurt butts across the spectrum in this thread:

Angry and skeptical about claims Donald Trump's supporters are racist-
1) 2p2 posters of just the highest sigma intelligence levels

vs.

Agree, through both word and deed, that Trump's support is bitterly racist-
1) 2p2 posters of fallacies, emotions, and not even listening to his stump speeches
2) Actual white supremacists
3) Donald Trump

2016 Republican Presidential Nomination CBS/NY Times Trump 36, Cruz 19, Rubio 12, Carson 6, Bush 6, Christie 3, Fiorina 3, Huckabee 4, Kasich 2, Paul 1, Santorum 0 Trump +17

Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus PPP (D) Trump 28, Cruz 26, Rubio 13, Carson 8, Bush 6, Christie 3, Paul 3, Huckabee 3, Kasich 3, Fiorina 3, Santorum 2 Trump +2


(35 16 9 13 3
Trump Cruz Rubio Carson Bush
Last month's CBS so everybody picks up from carson who lost 7)

bigger news is PPP showing Hill up only 6 vs Bern nationally)

Trump would easily be our least ethical President ever, so yeah, pretty much.

But lol still trying that "absolute fact" dodge, and now you're so excited to try to catch me in this hypocrisy you're abandoning your whole ****ing argument. So Trump's corruption or lack of corruption is a non-issue? OK. Sure.


So you're supporting him because you hate Mexicans, right?

Arguing with reztez is a endless windy road, many arguments will be abandoned along the way

Hopefully the Des Moines Register polls soon. I don't think the others do a good job.