I'm sure all the non-Americans watching this fiasco are laughing their a**es off.
Have you seen the rest of the world lately? It's a complete mess, and the majority of world leaders are class-A, clueless morons.
The opinions of 100% of all non-Americans are completely irrelevant as they have zero say in OUR elections. They can all go and screw themselves. Many countries are in complete collapse, now that is hilarious! We'll see who gets the last laugh.
Not sure I would say that most world leaders are morons.. However, the phenomenon of Trump like leaders, may not be unique to America. See TheAtlantic's "The View from Europe.. Little Trumps are in Every Country". These leaders similarly promise to "make their country great" by taking heavy handed approaches. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/donald-trump-europe-election/472113/
I'm sure all the non-Americans watching this fiasco are laughing their a**es off.
Have you seen the rest of the world lately? It's a complete mess, and the majority of world leaders are class-A, clueless morons.
The opinions of 100% of all non-Americans are completely irrelevant as they have zero say in OUR elections. They can all go and screw themselves. Many countries are in complete collapse, now that is hilarious! We'll see who gets the last laugh.
You might want to get out more and stop watching Fox News and listening to Trump. Actually nearly all economies in the world are growing their middle class. Even China, despite the economic downturn is still growing their middle class while America is shrinking theirs. Again, you might want to travel and see what is actually going on rather than taking the advice of a narcissistic sociopath.
Have you seen the rest of the world lately? It's a complete mess, and the majority of world leaders are class-A, clueless morons.
The opinions of 100% of all non-Americans are completely irrelevant as they have zero say in OUR elections. They can all go and screw themselves. Many countries are in complete collapse, now that is hilarious! We'll see who gets the last laugh.
Not sure I would say that most world leaders are morons.. However, the phenomenon of Trump like leaders, may not be unique to America. See TheAtlantic's "The View from Europe.. Little Trumps are in Every Country". These leaders similarly promise to "make their country great" by taking heavy handed approaches. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/donald-trump-europe-election/472113/
I am aware of the various European populist-right movements that are taking place in many European countries, and the election of Trump would be great for the entire world, as it would only help certain movements in Europe to grow stronger. I support a European revolution and I would like to see the toppling of multiple governments there. What is taking place in certain countries is just outrageous and a change in leadership is long overdue.
Have you seen the rest of the world lately? It's a complete mess, and the majority of world leaders are class-A, clueless morons.
The opinions of 100% of all non-Americans are completely irrelevant as they have zero say in OUR elections. They can all go and screw themselves. Many countries are in complete collapse, now that is hilarious! We'll see who gets the last laugh.
You might want to get out more and stop watching Fox News and listening to Trump. Actually nearly all economies in the world are growing their middle class. Even China, despite the economic downturn is still growing their middle class while America is shrinking theirs. Again, you might want to travel and see what is actually going on rather than taking the advice of a narcissistic sociopath.
If you think that I've been watching a lot of Fox, then you clearly haven't been paying attention. I find CNN to be more honest than Fox lately, even MSNBC sometimes. Fox messed up bigtime, and I think that they took significant longterm damage due to their outrageous behavior.
As for travelling, I travel plenty, and I'll be spending my summer vacation in a few European countries again this year, just like I did last year.
As for what Trump says, I don't have to agree with every word that comes out of his mouth. The USA needs a strong leader, the opposite of what we currently have.
OK, haven't read the whole thread yet, so I don't know if this has been addressed yet or not. If so, my apologies.
Basically, this is the GOP "establishment" (I use quotation marks because it is becoming more and more questionable as to whether the "establishment" is still coherent enough to actually exist; but that's a different discussion) and others with money and influence getting together to try and sway the outcome of the GOP nominating process. There is absolutely nothing wrong this, and this is the sort of thing that happens all the time in politics. The only reason it is being reported on so vigorously during this cycle is because the media absolutely love Trump. They know he generates clicks and the like, so they report on him -- or anything having to do with him -- as much as is possible.
OK, here's the real issue on the Republican side (the Democratic nomination is already locked up; despite the excitement and loads of money raised on the Sanders side, there is just no way he can possibly catch Hillary in the delegate count, as she already has a lead of ~700 and is only about 1000 away from sealing up a majority of the delegates): In order to seal the majority of the delegates, a candidate must reach 1,237 on the GOP side of things. It is an open question as to wether Trump will reach this number, and many people who study these things in depth believe he will fall short, and be left with only a plurality of delegates. Why is this important, you may ask?
Well, here's why in the simplest possible terms. At the conventions for each party, there is a First Ballot where the delegates MUST vote the way that they were sent to vote, based on the results of each state's primary or caucus. So, if for example Trump won 12 delegates in some state and Cruz won the other 8, then the delegates for that state must vote that way. Thus, if a candidate has a majority the First Ballot is also the final ballot. Conversely, if the candidate in the lead only has a plurality then there are more ballots. And on these ballots the delegates are NOT bound to vote any particular way. Therefore, a candidate such as Ted Cruz could end up winning a Second Ballot or Third Ballot if enough of the delegates do not want Trump to be the candidate.
And this does seem to be the way that many Republicans feel. Keep in mind that although Trump leads in delegates (though not by very many over Cruz), he seems to have a built in ceiling in the primaries and caucuses of somewhere between 35% and 40%, more or less. This is why Ted Cruz, for instance keeps repeating the line that "64% of Republicans don't want Trump as their nominee." Given the results so far in most of the states, Cruz seems to be technically correct, if exaggerating just a tad. So, if Trump doesn't reach that magic number of 1,237 delegates, there will be what is known as a "brokered" or "open" convention; and in that case it could easily go against Trump.
The reason the Republican "establishment" is so worried about this outcome is two-fold. First, they feel (and most polls show) that Trump would get walloped in a general election against Clinton. This would also mean that the 24 (if I remember correctly) GOP Senators who up for re-election, many of them in blue or purple states, would have a much harder time and the Republicans would almost certainly lose the Senate. Granted, my math shows that it's likely that they will lose it anyways. But a Trump nomination would make it nearly a forgone conclusion. Second, there have been many Republican functionaries, pundits, and even elected officials who have talked about how the party is splintering and, in Peggy Noonan's words (she was Ronald Reagan's speech writer), "shattering." Historian John Meecham has said that it's quite possible that George W. Bush will be the final Republican ever elected President of the United States (this has to do with the Electoral College, how Presidents are elected in the U.S., and all that jazz -- which is way beyond the scope of this post).
So, the GOP "establishment" has good reasons to want to stop Trump from being nominated. The problem they have if they succeed, however, is they will be left with Ted Cruz who, amazingly, has come out of this nominating process fiasco looking practically sane. He's loathed by his fellow GOP Senators in Washington, he has basically no friends or supporters among the party apparatchiks, but they may end up needing to support him if they are that determined to defeat Trump. It's a Faustian bargain. Cruz wouldn't do a whole lot better in the Electoral College than Trump would, and Hillary would still end up being the next President. But he might be able to stop, or at least lessen the "shattering" of the GOP that will almost certainly be turned up to 11 if Trump is the nominee.
These are the sorts of considerations that bring these people together to strategize on how to defeat a particular candidate. You don't think that the GOP would a time machine so they could back in time and choose anyone but Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election? He lost 44 states and DC.
No offense, and I'm not at all a Trump supporter, but if that is who the American people choose, then that is who they choose. This is especially frightening if people within the government themselves are looking to interfere in the electoral process. Why don't Tim and these big tech companies plot to help a candidate they support win instead?
It's not interfering, it's what's always done during an election. These people see Trump as a genuine threat to the US and it's their right to get together to plan ways to educate the voters so he doesn't get elected.
I'm sure all the non-Americans watching this fiasco are laughing their a**es off. It's amazing how many laws he's breaking while forcing his freedom of speech onto so many sheep. If he was the president and said half the things he's saying right now, he'd be put in jail. If you don't know what I mean, read up on the laws against discrimination to start with.
To start with is how much of a troll post this is.
You might want to get out more and stop watching Fox News and listening to Trump. Actually nearly all economies in the world are growing their middle class. Even China, despite the economic downturn is still growing their middle class while America is shrinking theirs. Again, you might want to travel and see what is actually going on rather than taking the advice of a narcissistic sociopath.
If you think that I've been watching a lot of Fox, then you clearly haven't been paying attention. I find CNN to be more honest than Fox lately, even MSNBC sometimes. Fox messed up bigtime, and I think that they took significant longterm damage due to their outrageous behavior.
As for travelling, I travel plenty, and I'll be spending my summer vacation in a few European countries again this year, just like I did last year.
As for what Trump says, I don't have to agree with every word that comes out of his mouth. The USA needs a strong leader, the opposite of what we currently have.
Except that Trump isn't a "strong leader" -- or a leader at all. Running a business is not in any way training for or predictive of success for being a successful elected official, let alone the President of the United States. Agree with what he thinks or not, that's not the question. He has no idea what he is getting into and makes it clear on a daily basis. This is why he always answers questions with answers like, "I will get them to pay for it," or "I will get them do [whatever crackpot idea he has today]." That's not the way it works, Mr. Trump. You can't tell Congress "You're fired," for instance, if they don't do what you want them to do. Same with the Supreme Court, state governments, and foreign nations.
I'm sure all the non-Americans watching this fiasco are laughing their a**es off.
Have you seen the rest of the world lately? It's a complete mess, and the majority of world leaders are class-A, clueless morons.
The opinions of 100% of all non-Americans are completely irrelevant as they have zero say in OUR elections. They can all go and screw themselves. Many countries are in complete collapse, now that is hilarious! We'll see who gets the last laugh.
America has a place in the world. DT hasn't built that wall cutting off Mexico (yet). Mr Trump is (IMHO and as a non american who has lived in N.H and worked for an American Company for 20+ years) about the worst possible POTUS I could imagine. With him at the helm, I fear a return to the bad old days of the Cold War. Putin wants DT to become president of the USA. They will allow him to rebuild the USSR to counter the threats that Pres Trump will make to just about every country in the world. He is a bully. The way he bullied local government in Scotland to get an effing Golf course built is there for all to see. When bullies don't get their way, they last out. With him as president the lashing out could be Nuclear. Do you really want that? I know my opinions don't count with the votes at the end of the day but for the rest of the world President Trump is a nightmare prospect.
Not sure I would say that most world leaders are morons.. However, the phenomenon of Trump like leaders, may not be unique to America. See TheAtlantic's "The View from Europe.. Little Trumps are in Every Country". These leaders similarly promise to "make their country great" by taking heavy handed approaches. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/donald-trump-europe-election/472113/
I am aware of the various European populist-right movements that are taking place in many European countries, and the election of Trump would be great for the entire world, as it would only help certain movements in Europe to grow stronger. I support a European revolution and I would like to see the toppling of multiple governments there. What is taking place in certain countries is just outrageous and a change in leadership is long overdue.
Ok, just take care that things don't get out of hand.. After the great depression, much financial unrest arose. In frustration, people supported very strong leaders in certain European countries, in the lead up to World War II. Certainly those leaders wanted the best for their countries. Looking back, I think the issue is more that those leaders were unfair to groups they considered outsiders, in their own country and others.
The reason the Republican "establishment" is so worried about this outcome is two-fold. First, they feel (and most polls show) that Trump would get walloped in a general election against Clinton.
The Republican "establishment" can go to hell.
The same establishment that brought us such strong and wonderful candidates like McCain and Romney, who both turned out to be impotent, cowardly weaklings. And this time around the establishment wanted Bush as their first choice. Bush would've been shlonged so badly by Clinton. We don't need anymore losers, thanks.
I'll take my chances with Trump, the best possible choice and the strongest choice.
Except that Trump isn't a "strong leader" -- or a leader at all. Running a business is not in any way training for or predictive of success for being a successful elected official, let alone the President of the United States. Agree with what he thinks or not, that's not the question. He has no idea what he is getting into and makes it clear on a daily basis. This is why he always answers questions with answers like, "I will get them to pay for it," or "I will get them do [whatever crackpot idea he has today]." That's not the way it works, Mr. Trump. You can't tell Congress "You're fired," for instance, if they don't do what you want them to do. Same with the Supreme Court, state governments, and foreign nations.
I'm sure that he'll make a far better leader than the community organizer, so I'm not worried at all about that.
I am aware of the various European populist-right movements that are taking place in many European countries, and the election of Trump would be great for the entire world, as it would only help certain movements in Europe to grow stronger. I support a European revolution and I would like to see the toppling of multiple governments there. What is taking place in certain countries is just outrageous and a change in leadership is long overdue.
Ok, just take care that things don't get out of hand.. After the great depression, much financial unrest arose. In frustration, people supported very strong leaders in certain European countries, in the lead up to World War II. Certainly those leaders wanted the best for their countries. Looking back, I think the issue is more that those leaders were unfair to groups they considered outsiders, in their own country and others.
I think that things probably will get slightly out of hand. It's too late already in my opinion. Things will get worse before they get better.
Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate. He is not natural born United States citizen. That is what birth certificates are all about. To prove place of birth. I hope this country wises up before Cruz gets to far. If elected it will open pandoras box. Or a embarrassing law suit. Everyone born with a United States citizen mother will be eligable. Born in any country, raised anywhere in the world. When Mexican mothers have their children in the United States those children are United States citizens not Mexican citizens. Same goes for Cruz with his document of proof he was born in Canada, he is Canadian natural born. Regardless if he renounces his Canadian citizenship he still, and always will have that Canadian birth certificate. The argument of McCain is futile. He was born on a military instalation and recieve a United States birth certificate. Obama was born in Hawaii, news flash Hawaii is a state he recieved a United States birth certificate. Ted Cruz can not be president.
The reason the Republican "establishment" is so worried about this outcome is two-fold. First, they feel (and most polls show) that Trump would get walloped in a general election against Clinton.
The Republican "establishment" can go to hell.
The same establishment that brought us such strong and wonderful candidates like McCain and Romney, who both turned out to be impotent, cowardly weaklings. And this time around the establishment wanted Bush as their first choice. Bush would've been shlonged so badly by Clinton. We don't need anymore losers, thanks.
I'll take my chances with Trump, the best possible choice and the strongest choice.
I am simply explaining why meetings like this, or that conference call the other day between Meg Whitman, the Chicago Cubs owner Thomas Ricketts, and some hedge fund manager named, I think, Singer (or something like that) are taking place.
And feel however you want about the GOP "establishment" -- if (note I said 'if') this ends up at a brokered convention, which is looking more and more likely, it is that "establishment" that will be choosing the next GOP nominee. And that nominee will NOT be Donald J. Trump. That's one thing you can be sure of. Again, it's all academic if Trump gets to 1,237 delegates.
As to other comment, neither you, I, or anyone else has evidence on which to base a comment such as "he'll be a good leader." Someone saying, "I'll be a good leader," is not evidence of anything. I mean, I could say, "I'm dating Taylor Swift." Doesn't make it true. Or "I could hit major league pitching." Doesn't make it true. There is absolutely zero evidence of Trump's leadership abilities since he has never been in a leadership position. No evidence whatsoever.
Doubtful. I've no issue with a woman president, but Hillary is a terrible candidate, a liar and utterly untrustworthy.
And yet her opponent is Trump. Go with the lesser of two evils.
Well, and a politician being a "liar and utterly untrustworthy" describes pretty much anyone who has run a (relatively) serious campaign at any level of government. It's nearly a job requirement.
I support Hillary and will vote for her. But I do respect Bernie a great deal, and his ideas are, for the most part, in line with my own. I also think that he is fairly honest and straight-forward from what I can tell. I simply don't think he's electable. And as I said in a post above, the Democratic nomination process is, for all intents and purposes, already finished. So, I am not going to bother voting in the Democratic primary tomorrow in Michigan. Hillary has a nearly 20 point lead in most polls, and she already has the nomination wrapped up. I'll watch some movies.
Or maybe I will go vote in the Republican primary for Kasich. Heh. That would be the first GOP primary I ever voted in. And unless things have changed since last time -- which they may very have -- I am pretty sure we still have an open primary system here in Michigan. Hmm. I should check that actually.
This is very unfortunate. It proves Bernie's and Trump's point that America is run by the establishment/corporations: There's no true Democracy in America if a handful of corporations can manipulate the outcome.
Having said that, Trump scares me a lot as well. It's not funny anymore.
Comments
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/donald-trump-europe-election/472113/
As for travelling, I travel plenty, and I'll be spending my summer vacation in a few European countries again this year, just like I did last year.
As for what Trump says, I don't have to agree with every word that comes out of his mouth. The USA needs a strong leader, the opposite of what we currently have.
Basically, this is the GOP "establishment" (I use quotation marks because it is becoming more and more questionable as to whether the "establishment" is still coherent enough to actually exist; but that's a different discussion) and others with money and influence getting together to try and sway the outcome of the GOP nominating process. There is absolutely nothing wrong this, and this is the sort of thing that happens all the time in politics. The only reason it is being reported on so vigorously during this cycle is because the media absolutely love Trump. They know he generates clicks and the like, so they report on him -- or anything having to do with him -- as much as is possible.
OK, here's the real issue on the Republican side (the Democratic nomination is already locked up; despite the excitement and loads of money raised on the Sanders side, there is just no way he can possibly catch Hillary in the delegate count, as she already has a lead of ~700 and is only about 1000 away from sealing up a majority of the delegates): In order to seal the majority of the delegates, a candidate must reach 1,237 on the GOP side of things. It is an open question as to wether Trump will reach this number, and many people who study these things in depth believe he will fall short, and be left with only a plurality of delegates. Why is this important, you may ask?
Well, here's why in the simplest possible terms. At the conventions for each party, there is a First Ballot where the delegates MUST vote the way that they were sent to vote, based on the results of each state's primary or caucus. So, if for example Trump won 12 delegates in some state and Cruz won the other 8, then the delegates for that state must vote that way. Thus, if a candidate has a majority the First Ballot is also the final ballot. Conversely, if the candidate in the lead only has a plurality then there are more ballots. And on these ballots the delegates are NOT bound to vote any particular way. Therefore, a candidate such as Ted Cruz could end up winning a Second Ballot or Third Ballot if enough of the delegates do not want Trump to be the candidate.
And this does seem to be the way that many Republicans feel. Keep in mind that although Trump leads in delegates (though not by very many over Cruz), he seems to have a built in ceiling in the primaries and caucuses of somewhere between 35% and 40%, more or less. This is why Ted Cruz, for instance keeps repeating the line that "64% of Republicans don't want Trump as their nominee." Given the results so far in most of the states, Cruz seems to be technically correct, if exaggerating just a tad. So, if Trump doesn't reach that magic number of 1,237 delegates, there will be what is known as a "brokered" or "open" convention; and in that case it could easily go against Trump.
The reason the Republican "establishment" is so worried about this outcome is two-fold. First, they feel (and most polls show) that Trump would get walloped in a general election against Clinton. This would also mean that the 24 (if I remember correctly) GOP Senators who up for re-election, many of them in blue or purple states, would have a much harder time and the Republicans would almost certainly lose the Senate. Granted, my math shows that it's likely that they will lose it anyways. But a Trump nomination would make it nearly a forgone conclusion. Second, there have been many Republican functionaries, pundits, and even elected officials who have talked about how the party is splintering and, in Peggy Noonan's words (she was Ronald Reagan's speech writer), "shattering." Historian John Meecham has said that it's quite possible that George W. Bush will be the final Republican ever elected President of the United States (this has to do with the Electoral College, how Presidents are elected in the U.S., and all that jazz -- which is way beyond the scope of this post).
So, the GOP "establishment" has good reasons to want to stop Trump from being nominated. The problem they have if they succeed, however, is they will be left with Ted Cruz who, amazingly, has come out of this nominating process fiasco looking practically sane. He's loathed by his fellow GOP Senators in Washington, he has basically no friends or supporters among the party apparatchiks, but they may end up needing to support him if they are that determined to defeat Trump. It's a Faustian bargain. Cruz wouldn't do a whole lot better in the Electoral College than Trump would, and Hillary would still end up being the next President. But he might be able to stop, or at least lessen the "shattering" of the GOP that will almost certainly be turned up to 11 if Trump is the nominee.
These are the sorts of considerations that bring these people together to strategize on how to defeat a particular candidate. You don't think that the GOP would a time machine so they could back in time and choose anyone but Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election? He lost 44 states and DC.
Mr Trump is (IMHO and as a non american who has lived in N.H and worked for an American Company for 20+ years) about the worst possible POTUS I could imagine. With him at the helm, I fear a return to the bad old days of the Cold War. Putin wants DT to become president of the USA. They will allow him to rebuild the USSR to counter the threats that Pres Trump will make to just about every country in the world.
He is a bully. The way he bullied local government in Scotland to get an effing Golf course built is there for all to see. When bullies don't get their way, they last out. With him as president the lashing out could be Nuclear. Do you really want that?
I know my opinions don't count with the votes at the end of the day but for the rest of the world President Trump is a nightmare prospect.
Two thumbs down.
The same establishment that brought us such strong and wonderful candidates like McCain and Romney, who both turned out to be impotent, cowardly weaklings. And this time around the establishment wanted Bush as their first choice. Bush would've been shlonged so badly by Clinton. We don't need anymore losers, thanks.
I'll take my chances with Trump, the best possible choice and the strongest choice.
I'm sure that he'll make a far better leader than the community organizer, so I'm not worried at all about that.
And feel however you want about the GOP "establishment" -- if (note I said 'if') this ends up at a brokered convention, which is looking more and more likely, it is that "establishment" that will be choosing the next GOP nominee. And that nominee will NOT be Donald J. Trump. That's one thing you can be sure of. Again, it's all academic if Trump gets to 1,237 delegates.
As to other comment, neither you, I, or anyone else has evidence on which to base a comment such as "he'll be a good leader." Someone saying, "I'll be a good leader," is not evidence of anything. I mean, I could say, "I'm dating Taylor Swift." Doesn't make it true. Or "I could hit major league pitching." Doesn't make it true. There is absolutely zero evidence of Trump's leadership abilities since he has never been in a leadership position. No evidence whatsoever.
I support Hillary and will vote for her. But I do respect Bernie a great deal, and his ideas are, for the most part, in line with my own. I also think that he is fairly honest and straight-forward from what I can tell. I simply don't think he's electable. And as I said in a post above, the Democratic nomination process is, for all intents and purposes, already finished. So, I am not going to bother voting in the Democratic primary tomorrow in Michigan. Hillary has a nearly 20 point lead in most polls, and she already has the nomination wrapped up. I'll watch some movies.
Or maybe I will go vote in the Republican primary for Kasich. Heh. That would be the first GOP primary I ever voted in. And unless things have changed since last time -- which they may very have -- I am pretty sure we still have an open primary system here in Michigan. Hmm. I should check that actually.
Having said that, Trump scares me a lot as well. It's not funny anymore.
>:x