Trump news

[robkelk]

At this point, IMHO the only way the GOP has any hope of getting somebody other than Trump as their candidate is to have either Rubio or Cruz drop out of the race, throwing his support behind the one who stays in. Although, even if they were promised the VP nomination in exchange, I don't see either of them falling on his own sword like that.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ordnance11]

robkelk wrote:

---

At this point, IMHO the only way the GOP has any hope of getting somebody other than Trump as their candidate is to have either Rubio or Cruz drop out of the race, throwing his support behind the one who stays in. Although, even if they were promised the VP nomination in exchange, I don't see either of them falling on his own sword like that.

Not even that course of action is going to change things. The only thing that would stop a Trump nomination (that's a big maybe) is a contested nomination. Stop Trump from getting the 1237 votes he needs. The problem is that he'll have the plurality of votes going in and he might win the nomination anyway. Any attempt by the establishment to have another nominee crowned (like say Mitt Romney) would end up turning against their base. Who would probably sit out the general election. So either accept the outcome, let the burning begin and try to rebuild in 2020. Or watch the GOP fall into irrelevancy and become a regional party at best.

Someone did the math and stated that Trump will have to win 70% of the white vote to win the general election....which breaks down to 68% of the men and 72% of the women. Given the changing demographics, it'll be mission impossible. I don't see him making inroads with women, the black or Hispanic vote. What I do see him doing is try to do an "etch and sketch" toward the center. And if that didn't work, maximize his base. McCain tried the inflammatory rhetoric in 2008 and at least had the decency to tone it down when he realized where it was leading. I don't see Trump having that same restraint. Expect an ugly and possibly violent election.    
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Bob Schroeck]

And on a less serious note, I came across the following image and its caption on Tumblr last night:

Casual reminder that Minions actively seek out the most evil being on the planet to serve.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[ordnance11]

So...Cruz is opening offices in Florida. Why? It's a winner take all state. It's not natural territory for him. It has 10 media markets and horribly expensive. So he wants to play the role of spoiler. For whom though?

Interesting...the delegates in these conventions would be party regulars. So,these delegates are required to vote for their candidates once or twice, them they can vote for their liking. And not one of them a die hard Trump fan.

So, if that's the case..what are the odds of a Trump/Cruz ticket? Jeez...
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[ordnance11]

http://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/status ... 80/photo/1
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Rajvik]

The true question about Florida is if there are enough Conservatives in the North of the state to off set the snowbirds, liberals and facials South of Tampa.
 

[robkelk]

Bloomberg's not running.

The billionaire, who has spent months mulling a third-party run, made his decision official through an editorial posted by the Bloomberg View, writing that he believes his candidacy would send the race to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and would likely lead to the election of Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.

--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Bob Schroeck]

... and for folks who didn't see it when it was broadcast...



Yeah, SNL.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[robkelk]

“Chuck Norris doesn’t endorse. He tells America how it’s going to be.”

---

A little something to show just how poorly Trump would be able to get along with Trudeau.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ordnance11]

Well, was it a victory speech or an infomercial made by Treump?
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[ordnance11]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pl ... ge%2Fstory

For Trump to accomplish this feat, at least 51% of the U.S. voters will have be what P.T. Barnum calls "suckers".
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[robkelk]

For Trump to accomplish this feat, at least 51% of the U.S. voters will have be what P.T. Barnum calls "suckers".

Well, assuming all the voters actually vote...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Rajvik]

ordnance11 wrote:

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pl ... ge%2Fstory

For Trump to accomplish this feat, at least 51% of the U.S. voters will have be what P.T. Barnum calls "suckers".

Well 2008 proved that to be mostly true. 2012 as well.
 

[ordnance11]

Rajvik wrote:

---

ordnance11 wrote:

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pl ... ge%2Fstory

For Trump to accomplish this feat, at least 51% of the U.S. voters will have be what P.T. Barnum calls "suckers".

Well 2008 proved that to be mostly true. 2012 as well.

Funny I was thinking of 2010 also.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Rajvik]

Ordinance, I would wager that more of the Tea Party senators get re-elected than not and those that do lose will lose to more or least more demonstrably conservative candidates than more liberal ones.
 

[ordnance11]

I look at it this way. The Tea Party and the GOP Senate and House leadership promised things that they will able to get done. Things that anyone who had Civics 101 would realize would take 2 things to happen on their terms of office:

1. Control of the White House and Congress by the same party
2. Compromise.

Since they failed in 2008 and 20012 to achieve that and option number 2 is anathema to the Tea Party, is it any wonder the result is deadlock?

Deadlock the Mitch McConnel deliberately pursued as a strategy. So now what you have is Trump.

Oh, and if the Tea Party senators get re-elected, does it make them part of the establishment sooner or later? Because being a Senator does have benefits hat I don't see any of them deciding not to receive.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[ordnance11]

Just looked at the morning headlines. Trump cancelling Chicago annd the muddying of the waters concerning Breitbsrt's reporter being roughed up by Trump's political manager. Bretibart can't make up their minds whether to support their reporter or support Trump.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[robkelk]

... Bretibart can't make up their minds whether to support their reporter or support Trump.

Employers that don't support their employees end up with a lot of ex-employees... Just saying.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ordnance11]

Too good to be true...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... trump.html
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Black Aeronaut]

I don't know what would be more frightening:

a) She's an honest believer in Trump's xenophobia

or

b) She actually is a German that emigrated to America and was one of the proud supporters of Hitler's regime

[Rajvik]

How about possibility C: That she is a liberal Democrat trying to cause problems for the probable Republican nominee.

Rob, news agencies that run "to print" without all the facts tend to die messily. Breitbart seems to me to be walking that razor thin line of backing one their own and remaining impartial.
 

[ordnance11]

A bit of  A and B, but no C.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

If Bretibart is remaining impartial, then their spokesman resigning over the incident is not what I would call a model of impartiality:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016 ... /81688750/

The relevant part to me is this:
"Bardella said Breitbart has been looking for a reason to disprove the incident, when all the evidence strongly suggests Fields' version is accurate,
"I just disagree with the course of which they’ve been covering this, and how they’ve treated Michelle," he told CNN."

And of course you have also this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... ge%2Fstory
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Black Aeronaut]

ordnance11 wrote:

---

A bit of  A and B, but no C.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

“They said Trump is a second Hitler,” Ms. Peterson said. “I said do you know what that sign stands for? Do you know who Hitler really was?”
“I make the point that they are demonstrating something they had no knowledge about,” she said. “If you want to do it right, you do it right. You don’t know what you are doing.”
That is when she made the Nazi salute — a gesture that is banned in Germany — as a form of counterprotest. But that is all it was, she said.
“Absolutely I’m not a Nazi, no,” she said. “I’m not one of those.”

Okay, I can see that.  But even so, it was a horribly inflammatory thing to do, and indicative of just what lengths Trump's supporters will go to.
Oh, and apparently Trump does not have the support of the Pentagon:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... trump.html

I only hope that they realize that they can head off the worst of it if they stay on.

[khagler]

Just the other day I came across an article that does a good job of explaining Trump's supporters: How the P.C. Police Propelled Donald Trump.

[ordnance11]

khagler wrote:

---

Just the other day I came across an article that does a good job of explaining Trump's supporters: How the P.C. Police Propelled Donald Trump.

Counterpoint:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... obama.html

Pick your POV.  
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell