The hour grows late
- Thread starter eastcane
- Start date
This is very interesting and informative. But it is close enough to say that there is still room either way. A few delegates either way could change things. It will be interesting to keep this and refer to it later. [Or as the article says "refer back."] I have bookmarked it.
Other than just being so close, events in the meantime could hurt or help one side. With each primary minor variances or complete upsets can change things. But, thanks Eastcane, it will be a tool for the next couple of months to track results versus expectations.
Other than just being so close, events in the meantime could hurt or help one side. With each primary minor variances or complete upsets can change things. But, thanks Eastcane, it will be a tool for the next couple of months to track results versus expectations.
Trump is missing a control mechanism that most of us have, the guy just can't help himself. I noticed that a story came out in the National Enquirer yesterday that accuses Cruz of having five affairs in the past, and that they have the goods on him. Also saw where Trump warned Cruz in a photo tweet earlier in the week that he might spill the beans on Cruz' wife Heidi if a certain Super Pac continues to show pictures of Trump's trophy wife in all her glory. Chances are pretty good that Trump had the Cruz affair rumors placed in the National Enquirer, his buddy is the CEO of that rag, and it has been running negative pieces against many of Trump's one time rivals since last summer. Doubt if any of it is true, regarding the Cruz' affairs, but it accomplishes what the Trump campaign thrives on, dirt on his main rivals, regardless of actual proof.
Talk about getting ugly, this sideshow is going all the way through summer, can't imagine where it all will end. One thing for sure, the talk about Kasich, or even Rubio being the nominee in a brokered convention is all but over, it will be either Trump or Cruz in the end.
Talk about getting ugly, this sideshow is going all the way through summer, can't imagine where it all will end. One thing for sure, the talk about Kasich, or even Rubio being the nominee in a brokered convention is all but over, it will be either Trump or Cruz in the end.
You are correct that it is a rag without any real semblance of editorial control, and it is controlled by a Trump supporter to boot. Because of that, I'm going to give Cruz the benefit of the doubt for now, just because I really wouldn't put it past Trump to stoop to this level of sleaze.
That said, Cruz wouldn't be the first "family values" conservative to turn out to be a complete hypocrite. See Newt Gingrich, David Vitter, et al. That and the National Enquirer has a not so horrible record when it comes to exposing the flaws of leading political figures. See: Gary Hart, John Edwards, and Rush Limbaugh's pill addiction.
I'll expect this story will either die within one week or will explode when a major media outlet confirms it. You don't accumulate five mistresses without shamelessly flirting with at least a few more than five, some of whom may have felt very uncomfortable and who may not be Cruz supporters. So it really shouldn't take too long to bubble to the surface if it is indeed true. For an example of this snowball effect, see Bob Filner. He was elected mayor despite a couple of rumors of mistresses and inappropriate behavior. Then a whole slew of women came forward at once with lewd allegations, including an editor of the local newspaper, and Admiral in the Navy, a dean at San Diego State University, and a veritable who's who of other prominent local women that had nothing to gain by fabricating such stories.
What I find interesting is that Trump is pushing a sex scandal that involves his campaign spokesperson, and she doesn't seem to mind one bit. In some ways that level of committment and ruthlessness is kind of impressive.
A woman friend of ours and her 12 year old son were spotted and marched out of a Trump rally by security because the kid had on a Bernie shirt. People were ok to them until they were being led out, then their experience was more consistent with the report I posted.
As for relying on social media and Iphones for what happens at Trump rallies, you might want to check out the discussion on this podcast. Trump does not allow TV cameras to film the crowd; they are confined to a single position and are only allowed to record/televise head-on to the stage, otherwise they are not allowed in. No other candidate has ever done that. Why? What are we not supposed to see?
Last edited:
I have several friends who have taken their kids to Trump rallies. At each rally there were anti-Trump people shouting F Trump. While I think Trump might be the worst candidate of all time I also don't understand how people can be so inconsiderate around children. At one rally my buddy asked them if they could refrain from the chant due to his kids being present...their response...F you.
Interesting that he inspires so much violence or poor behavior from both sides and only at his rallies. He certainly invites it and eggs it on, and the results demonstrate that it works, so he'll keep doing it. You see Republican quotes like "I disagree with this tactics, but he speaks to me". His approval ratings among Republicans continue to grow, although his disapproval ratings among the general population also grows.
Meanwhile he carefully controls what we are allowed to see at his rallies. Why?
If you pay attention to what we are allowed to see of Trump, he skips the brain. He says "I feel" or "I dislike" or some other strong emotion. He feels like "punching that guy" (and someone in the crowd does.) If someone questions or disagrees with him, he makes it personal which is both emotional and changes the subject. His promises make zero sense. Mexico isn't building a wall. A wall would cost 50+Billion, not $4B or even $12B as he later said. But he keeps on promising a bigger wall. Deporting 11M people would cost a huge amount , lead to a recession, and balloon the deficit. But he keeps on talking about deportation. In interviews he refuses to answer questions about his policies, and the media lets him get away with it. He just says stuff without a clue about how to do it. But since he is skipping the brain and operating on a purely emotional level, he gets a pass.
And more Republicans are starting to rationalize supporting him.
Now that's weird.
Last edited:
Sure, why not?
Is your assumption that if people disagree with each other that it automatically translates to dislike and violence? Might explain Trump's rising appeal among Republicans, but separating the two should should be one of the benefits of being exposed to debate and critical thinking in college or to compassion in church.
His net favorables were +27 among republicans in december. They're only +14 in Fox's latest poll, extremely low for a front runner. The opposition is pretty hard so there hasn't been much of a bandwagon effect.
None of this matters...other than being ugly.
If Trump is the nominee, the Republican Party is going down to a loss of historic proportions. Hillary will be president unless the FBI comes out with something of note. If they do Bernie or Biden will be president. Even if he is somehow blocked from the nomination, the damage is pretty well done. The tantrum that follows and possibly Trump running as a third party will only add to it. The small chance is a number of landslides for Cruz or Kasich in big states in the next primaries.
A number of life long Republican [like me] will not vote for Trump or Clinton. I'll still vote but not in the presidential race [oh maybe half heartedly for a third party] and in other races and state questions.
If Trump is the nominee, the Republican Party is going down to a loss of historic proportions. Hillary will be president unless the FBI comes out with something of note. If they do Bernie or Biden will be president. Even if he is somehow blocked from the nomination, the damage is pretty well done. The tantrum that follows and possibly Trump running as a third party will only add to it. The small chance is a number of landslides for Cruz or Kasich in big states in the next primaries.
A number of life long Republican [like me] will not vote for Trump or Clinton. I'll still vote but not in the presidential race [oh maybe half heartedly for a third party] and in other races and state questions.
You can still write in Marco even if it won't matter. I'm thinking of doing that. In the end, we have to vote for who we prefer to be POTUS and with the remaining field, my preference is none of the above who are listed on the ballot.
You mean as long as the voting machine is used. Correct?
But the voter could still do it out of protest I assume.
Also, why doesn't Oklahoma allow it? The will of the people should "trump" all else - IMO.
Here is what I'd like to see the voters be able to do. If a voter wants to write in a persons name, they don't use the machine, but hand the marked ballot to a precinct official and that vote is counted later on. But of course there needs to be an approved process. I'd really like to vote for someone not on the ballot, but of course I'm no longer affiliated with a party.
But the voter could still do it out of protest I assume.
Also, why doesn't Oklahoma allow it? The will of the people should "trump" all else - IMO.Here is what I'd like to see the voters be able to do. If a voter wants to write in a persons name, they don't use the machine, but hand the marked ballot to a precinct official and that vote is counted later on. But of course there needs to be an approved process. I'd really like to vote for someone not on the ballot, but of course I'm no longer affiliated with a party.
Last edited:
The ratings I saw compared his August approval vs. his recent ratings. I'm not sure what +27 and +14 mean as those numbers don't related to the %s that I saw. Anyway happy to see them headed down.
I will vote Hillary in that situation and straight tea party republicans on the rest... Gridlock will save us from the devil. 4-8 more yrs of executive/legislative fighting is ok with me.
Trump University? They made a couple of mistakes.
"By letter dated May 27, 2005, the New York State Department of Education notified Trump individually, Sexton, and Trump University that (1) they were violating the New York Education Law by using the word "university" when in fact Trump University was not actually chartered as one and (2) that Trump University was violating the Education Law because it lacked a license to offer live-instruction or training to students in New York State.[12]"
"By letter dated May 27, 2005, the New York State Department of Education notified Trump individually, Sexton, and Trump University that (1) they were violating the New York Education Law by using the word "university" when in fact Trump University was not actually chartered as one and (2) that Trump University was violating the Education Law because it lacked a license to offer live-instruction or training to students in New York State.[12]"
Weak. Your argument was that all he does is say bad things rather than doing bad things. Quit moving the goal posts. Make excuses for his Ponzi scheme too
We all know and point out hrc's bad deeds. We also see Trumps bad deeds.
But right now the FBI has 149 agents working on her bad deeds and has taken the investigation away from the State Department which means it is a criminal investigation. If the find wrong doing she is toast. If they don't we need a better candidate than Trump if we our going to beat her.
But right now the FBI has 149 agents working on her bad deeds and has taken the investigation away from the State Department which means it is a criminal investigation. If the find wrong doing she is toast. If they don't we need a better candidate than Trump if we our going to beat her.
The current hack job (aka investigation) that has some posters panting in anticipation and 149 FBI agents working feverishly is for holding emails on her own server as Colin Powell and Condi Rice did when they held the same job. Where is the outrage and those investigations?
The number of FBI agents and the thoroughness of the examination is because anything less would be fodder for political hack jobs like the post above. The Republican party has gone out of its way to vilify HRC for over a decade because they understood that she was the most likely Dem woman to run for prez. She has withstood more investigations which have come up with zippo than anyone. She also has more experience in international affairs as Sec'y of State and both domestic/foreign issues as a TWO term Senator. There's no one more prepared the world's most complex and difficult job.
Is she unblemished? No. Would I prefer someone else, likely. But some of the criticisms here reflect an overdose of Fox, Glenn, Rush, etc. As for honesty, if Cruz, Rubio, or Trump are acceptable, then she comes out squeaky clean--at least by comparison. One term Senators Cruz and Rubio haven't done anything to be held accountable for. Rubio touts his toughest decision as a committee vote. Wow. Opps, there's Cruz's costing the taxpayers billions in attempting to shut the government down which earned him the well earned disgust of his colleagues.
One of these days you'll admit that WATU is really just a parody account run by a conservative to embarrass normal libs.
Last edited:
WATU, if you are going through a school zone in a town you are unfamiliar with and miss the sign and are doing 30 in a 20 mph zone, be sure and tell the cop that you know someone who went 50 in a school zone ten years ago and didn't get caught. You might try "but no one was hurt." You could try "I did it for my convenience." The last one might get you taken downtown. Hillary's special is "I'm sorry that I didn't but I didn't do anything wrong." I'm sure her lawyer didn't read all 55,000 pages. He probably had staff members, who weren't cleared for it read them, although I doubt he had clearance anyway.
Actually, it is for having secret documents on an unsecured private server, using a blackberry in a prohibited zone because they were considered easier to pick, having staff member handle information that they were not cleared for. The guy who put her system together was given immunity and is cooperating. Hillary is an example of the kind of arrogance that people who have been in high positions too long get where they think the rules, regulations and laws are for other people but not for them.
Actually, it is for having secret documents on an unsecured private server, using a blackberry in a prohibited zone because they were considered easier to pick, having staff member handle information that they were not cleared for. The guy who put her system together was given immunity and is cooperating. Hillary is an example of the kind of arrogance that people who have been in high positions too long get where they think the rules, regulations and laws are for other people but not for them.
Use of the same false and blunt instrument for the 40th time doesn't make any truer or any more damaging than the 1st time. It's not true and doesn't do any harm to the very small mass of Republicans on here that never watch Fox, Glenn, or Rush. I'm not speaking for those Republicans, I am simply referring to what many of them, myself included, have said repeatedly.(I do not include aTUfan in this exception from Fox, Glenn, or Rush.)
Just because grandma Clinton used her Windows 95 computer that was compromised security wise to store classified documents doesn't mean she's not qualified to be president. It disqualifies her because of her continued lack of judgement in critical decisions. That, and her pending criminal indictment. Maybe she won't get to be crowned Queen B after all.
Similar threads
