Last Stop Before Iowa Week at Legal Insurrection
All the stories you may have missed…
Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 08:30am 21 Comments
As the country prepares for the first caucus of 2016, things are really heating up.
- Defense Plan: Questioning Hillary’s honesty is sexist
- Pelosi Sort of Endorses Hillary While Slamming Bernie’s Tax Increases
- Bernie Sanders Meets the Clinton Smear Machine and He’s Furious
It was also an interesting week in higher education.
- April is Whiteness History Month at Portland Community College
- MLK’s most famous line not politically correct enough on campus
- U. Waterloo students reject academic boycott of Israel
Meanwhile, in world news…
- Mass migration gives Sweden male gender imbalance worse than China
- Israeli Technology to Track Terrorists on Social Media, Prevent Attacks
- What if Assad were overthrown?
And finally, some humor.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Tomorrow is the big day and I suspect who the winner will be.
Trump has, demonstrably, the worst character of anyone on the GOP ticket, combined with the most extravagant self-reverence. Obviously you’re proud to be one of the devotees whose faith would not be shaken by anything he does — while he boasts about the blind devotion his fans bestow upon him.
As Trump put it, he could shoot someone and his fans wouldn’t budge.
He tells you that “You’ll have the privilege of voting for the man [himself] who will easily go down as the greatest president in the history of this country!”
He tells people, “It must such an honor for you to be honoring me.”
Obviously, a “voting female” isn’t the same as a “thinking female.”
I support the supporters of Cruz & Trump.
I’ve endorsed no one …yet.
Trump or Cruz, it makes no difference to me.
You can cry, wail, stomp your feet, name call, mis-characterize all you want.
Tell us all, Radegunda, who do you support for president in 2016? Bernie Sanders? Hillary Clinton? Jeb Bush? Who?
You’ve made excuses for Trump before. I could not possibly make excuses for such a loathsome bully.
It’s completely irrational to suggest that I have to declare openly for another candidate right now (though my state has a late primary) before I’m qualified to point to the glaring faults of Donald J. Trump.
A lot of thoughtful people are still weighing the merits of various candidates. Less-thoughtful people immediately attached themselves to Trump, and ever since then they’ve been saying that anyone who criticizes Trump is a sellout.
Trump and Cruz are VERY different people — practically polar opposites in character and principles. They would be vastly different in the presidency.
Also: my observations about Trump, including quotations from his own mouth, remain true regardless of which candidate I might support. I could be a “Hillary/Bernie supporter” (as Gary triumphantly concluded) and it would still be true.
Democrats can see the same flaws in Trump. If he were nominated and they put together some devastating attack ads with video of Trump trash-talking, it won’t much good to say “That doesn’t count because you’re a Hillary/Bernie supporter.”
After all that, you didn’t answer my question.
And, by the way, you can tell me. It’s ok.
You can not see what I do for Cruz on twitter if you dont follow me on twitter or track the goings on on twitter.
I balance between Cruz & Trump and took Trump to serious task with the NY Values 911 attack and the loans. Dont say much about the natural born citizenship though. But I believe he is qualified. Cruz would make a fine president and I think Trump would also.
Those who suffer blind hatred of are, well, blind.
Lighten up, girl.
So, who do you support? Prefer Hillary or Bernie?
One poll has Iowa currently at:
Trump or Cruz will apparently win Iowa (do not trust polls). However, as the primary season moves along candidates will drop out and their support will go to another candidate. Poll leaders don’t drop out, of course, but if polls are anywhere near accurate, Christie, Paul, and Carson will drop out eventually and their current combined 18% will move almost entirely to Rubio or Cruz – they won’t go to Trump or they would already be there. As the field narrows, any gap between leader and contenders always narrows. This is the way of every primary season.
In 2008 Huckabee won Iowa with 34%, with eventual nominee McCain coming in third at 13%. In 2012 Santorum won Iowa by a nose with eventual nominee Romney coming in second.
Factor in that 60-65% of GOP voters do not support Trump, and factor in the bludgeoning of Cruz by the GOPe and media, and it may very well be Rubio who benefits eventually. I’d hate this, being a Cruz supporter, but that’s the dynamic I see forming.
For anyone believing in the inevitability of any given candidate, I’d remind them of Hillary Clinton in 2008 and 2016, and Jeb Bush in 2016.
“they won’t go to Trump or they would already be there.”
Can you support this? Or is it just your belief? Could be correct. Or incorrect. I have no real clue.
Polls can be wrong. They can also be correct. With Iowa it is a bit different given it is a caucus. But, every poll shows Trump leading. They will all have to be wrong or a sea change occur to produce anything like your wishes.
By what scenario do you see Trump not winning NH and SC? If Cruz and Bush both drop out after Iowa and all their support goes to Rubio, he would still be behind Trump. In SC if bush and cruz both are out and all the support went to Rubio he would just barely be ahead of Trump, who currently leads by +16.
I think you’re smoking something. Wishing will not make it come true. But keep hoping.
Anything is possible, but just because it is possible does not make it likely.
So far in this election, every prediction regarding the chances of trump have been wrong. I’ll just file yours in the same file labeled incorrect with all the others.
Look at the second choices in the poll:
Trump is the second choice of only 7%. Averaging first and second choices, Cruz leads at 20%, with Trump and Rubio tied at 15%. (or you can double those numbers to get the percentage of those polled who picked a candidate either as a first choice or a second one.)
Apparently 9% named somebody else not mentioned (Romney Ryan? Walker? Jindal?) as their first choice, or said they had none, and the percentages were calculated excluding them. First choices add up to 99%, and why it is not 100% can be explained by rounding.
The 9% were put back in the percentages for second choice, with all the percentages, including “Not Sure” and “Uncommitted” adding up to only 91% while for first choice it adds up to 99%.
Correction: Trump and Rubio tied at 17.5% (or 35% who support either of them as a first or a second choice)
Trump vindictively stalked (for 20 years) a British producer he failed to seduce.
Trump says he has never done anything that requires forgiveness.
Trump said his father told him to be a “killer.”
Trump calls people who don’t advance his ambitions “losers.” He tries to ruin them.
Trump says he will “easily go down as the greatest president in the history of this country.”
Trump calls people “stupid losers” if they favor another candidate or say anything unflattering about him.
Trump wanted to court Princess Diana. She thought he was “creepy.” She was right.
Whatever happened to the idea that character is an important presidential quality? It’s gone completely out the window among Trump fans — who seem happy to prove correct his boast that he could openly shoot someone and their reverence would not waver.
Down votes are from Trump fans who are happy to throw out the most basic questions of character because someone told them “I’ll give you this if you give me power over you.”
How anyone could lap up the self-serving (and inconsistent) campaign declarations of a self-worshiping bully is beyond weird.
forget about down and up votes… means very little.
Who do you support for President in the 2016 election?
Character was stricken from the qualifications list in 2008.
Megyn Kelly Admits twisting the debate
Why do the Trump fans here think they have the right to bully others into revealing who they themselves support, when that person has made it clear that they’re not interested in publicly committing yet?
They’ve been tag-teaming Radegunda on this through several threads here over the last week or so, and it’s a pretty ugly look.
Criticisms of Trump should be taken on their merit — they’re either true or false; you either agree or disagree. Take issue with the criticisms, sure! But why the coordinated bully-boy tactics against the person voicing them?
After about a dozen or so iterations, it’s getting kind of tiresome to see every comment of Radegunda’s followed with the demand that she must declare herself, right here and now.
“and it’s a pretty ugly look”
Oh my, what nasty brutes, trying to determine the true agenda of a commenter.
Poor Amy. Just don’t read the question if it bothers you so.
I ask, because we have two people that comment in every thread and will not reveal who they support. As far as I’m concerned they are paid democrat party plants.
And I’ll keep asking, just so it’s clear to the casual reader that these people are suspicious.
Do you guys truly have no idea how transparent you are? You can’t counter someone’s points with fact or reason, so you just try to hector and bully them into shutting up. And yes, given that that was traditionally a Leftist tactic, it *is* a pretty ugly look coming from someone ostensibly on the right.
I’m not trying to be transparent. I’ve given plenty of facts and reason over the last 6 months, you choose to ignore it and make up your own BS.
I have never, not once cried for someone to shutup, that is precisely what you are doing. All I ask is that these operatives state who they support like 90% of the people making their case on this board.