I thought closed borders were evil?
Since she makes a joke of the fact that she won’t go grey in the White House because she’s been coloring her hair for years, this would not be a scandal.
Okay, more scandalous than Bengazi, maybe.
Damn, I’m glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I read that.
Trump’s policy proposals basically amount to, “I’ll come up with something, and it’ll by yoooge, because of me.” And Clinton fans are the ones divorced from reality.
OK, maybe it is that time of day. Sonuvabitch, gimme a drink.
Did you know that most Republican commentators agree that Clinton looked good on Thursday, and Gowdy Doody and his Clown Crew looked stupid?
Maybe someday you’ll figure out that this is a bullshit, bogus scandal that has nothing to do with anything. They didn’t interview people like Petraeus, who was head of the CIA at the time, but they’re obsessed with…Sidney Blumenthal?? WTF?!
Clearly it was neither an act of terrorism, nor a mob roused to anger by a video. Instead, Blumenthal must’ve organized the attack. :rolleyes:
Trump will not be President. He will not be the GOP nominee. He has no chance. Carson has even less of a chance. Polls mean absolutely nothing right now; not primary polls and especially not hypothetical general election polls.
This is the time when the crazies shine. It happened in 2011 and it’s happening now. They may even be getting a bigger spotlight this time around because of the proliferation of social media. By the time the primaries start to come around, the crazies will be dropping and the real candidates will emerge.
Better yet, if the GOP Establishment is forced to resort to blatant dirty tricks, Trump will get pissed enough to wipe his ass with that no-independent-run plegde, and a big chunk of his support will get pissed enough to follow, possibly resulting in another third-place finish for the GOP.
Uh… yeah… about that…
Lot of the people I read about all this are making pointed references to the increasing support of women for Hillary. They seem to have gotten it into their pretty little heads that her treatment by the Committee is just the sort of belligerent stubbornness that they endure from men on a regular basis. That they like that she stood her ground, kept her cool, and beat them at their own game, with their own rules.
Guys, its time for us to just get out of their way. Let the soft guys with the wobbly bits run things. Maybe they can’t do better, but could they do worse? Leave us a lot more time for beer and fishing. Let us stand together in solidarity and say with one loud, clear voice “Yes, dear”.
[
](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AP_POLL_GOP_2016?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-10-25-08-37-25)
If he gets the nom, he’s gonna get their votes, it seems.
Um the idea of a laughably ignorant man making policy off of the top of his head or representing the US in -yes- negotiations is scary. Luckily I trust it won’t happen.
Normal people hire auto mechanics to fix cars. Not cooks. They hire cooks to prepare food. Not carpenters. They support people with political experience to run countries. Not ignoramuses.
Don’t get me wrong. I like Trump. I follow him on Twitter. He’s funny. And his supporters are even more hilarious, albeit unintentionally. So yes, Trump is fully qualified to run in the GOP primary: it’s not like he’s their only self-promoter who has little desire for the Oval office.
Actually, building a wall is already authorized, as is a biometric entry/exit system. A President can certainly use his executive power to actually build what Congress ordered built years ago. The only reason those things haven’t been built is because the bills were always just for show, classic bait and switch for the rubes.
There is no logical connection between those steps. To make that clear, within the actual linked to topline results, 75% of all of the polled population (Republicans, Democrats, Independents, all) believes that Hillary could win, while not a single GOP candidate has even 50% believing they can. That does not mean that the 75% will vote for her.
Interesting what they chose to highlight as their lede. They could just have easily highlighted this:
Even there they phrase it interestingly: “the highest negatives of any Republican candidate”? Of any candidate. No one else of either party got over 48%. His net negative number was the highest at 26 and 43% have a “very unfavorable impression” of him. Even Cruz is disliked by fewer and has a better net score.
Or that the top three “favorable impression” names were in order Obama, Clinton, and Biden.
Sure, Trump may have the highest negatives now. But to be fair, as the other Republican candidates get better known, their negatives will likely rise as well.
I would tend to agree, though there’s evidence against this. Consider the outsider vote in 2012, consisting of Herbert Cain and Michelle Bachmann. It broke 30% once, but never hit the 60-65% range which we’ve experienced since late August.
In contrast, establishment candidates make up just under 20% of the vote now.
http://wm40.inbox.com/thumbs/93_130b2b_ed17ae9_oP.png.thumb
http://wm40.inbox.com/thumbs/94_130b2a_21c96c3c_oG.gif.thumb
The Republicans have a number of plausible candidates, but they are losing. In national and New Hampshire polling, Rubio and Bush are in single digits.
pretty much every 7th-grader in this country knows what a Bill of Attainder is, yet the presidential candidate everyone is paying attention to doesn’t.
“Let me give you the bad news: Every car, every truck and every part manufactured in this plant that comes across the border, we’re going to charge you a 35 percent tax,” Trump said. “They are going to take away thousands of jobs.”
Are we supposed to hunt through that link to find where he’s proposing a Bill of Attainder, or did you intend to quote that part yourself?
And even that’s only if you count Bachmann, an elected Representative, as an “outsider”. Cain’s the only candidate from 2012 who was really comparable to Trump, Carson, and Fiorina as a true outsider, who’d never before held public office.
He quoted only a part of the relevant section:
Sounds like a Bill of Attainder to me, although I’d note that most Democrats voted for a Bill of Attainder a few years back to tax AIG employees’ bonuses 90%.
Three problems:
-
No one should consider anything Trump says to be a serious, thought-out policy position, so to apply a technical term such as ‘Bill of Attainder’ to anything he says is overly presumptuous.
-
No one in this thread has quoted anything to demonstrate that he’s proposing a Bill of Attainder anyway. Taxing imports of car parts and personally calling the CEO does not make a Bill of Attainder.
-
Bills of Attainder are easy to get to the point where there pass Constitutional muster. Usually, this looks something like, “The follow tax applies to any automobile manufacturing company based in Dearborn, MI and founding in 1903.”
Neither is a bill of attainder. Trump obviously isn’t talking about singling out any one automaker for punitive taxes-- It’s pretty clear that he means for that to be a tax on any automaker importing parts, or at least importing them from Mexico. It’s only relevant for those considering opening up plants there, but it’d apply to all of them.
Similarly, the AIG thing didn’t target AIG specifically; it targeted a category of companies which happened to include AIG.