Topic: Up Like Trump - page 139. (Read 572883 times)

Not from mainstream media at all. I lived in Georgia when she was in congress and heard all the time about her batshit craziness.

The Saudi connection to 9/11 was only part of mainstream knowledge relatively recently, and certainly not known to any but the most very well informed at that point in history. Saudi Arabia has been seen as a key ally up until very recently, so you can hardly call that action some kind of fringe activity.

Gadhafi was no angel, but he certainly was serving his people and was trying to build independence and infrastructure not only for his people but also Africa as a whole. He also did well keeping out violent extremist Muslims. He was removed from power because he threatened to stabilize Africa making it more difficult to steal its resources by globalist plunderers. Also he had a shitload of gold as well as control of one of the largest aquifers in Africa. He is not completely the demon that the media represented him as, he was simply the enemy of the corporate profiteers that wanted to continue to rape his country and the region as a whole.

As far as your comment about racism, I have been following her work for a while and I do not agree with this assessment. I think much of your information is coming from extremely bias mainstream media that have interest in demonizing her and marginalizing her work.

Trump all the way.

I would choose anyone over Hillary, she is stupid and ugly. Also she is funded by shady organisations which are responsible for international terrorism.

Trump supports his own campaign. God bless you Mr. President.

Cynthia McKinney? The woman who after 9/11 the Saudis offered a donation to New York and they declined McKinney jumped up and said "I'll take it!".

She's a big fan of Moammar Gadhafi, she used to camp out on the house floor for six hours when the president spoke just so she'd be seen on national TV. And just about everything she doesn't like she equates to racism.

I'm glad she's no longer in congress. She just needs to go away.

I think racism is largely overstated in the media as a way to divide and conquer the US populace. That being said they clearly do exist, but I think the negative effect would be more than outweighed by the "I want to vote for a minority/woman" vote which could easily turn a bunch of Hitlery supporters to the Trump side as she is overly dependent on this demographic.

Agree on Mckinney.  The woman is fearless, and right on on so many issues.  I think that Trump already has a lock on the 'conspiracy theorist' vote (e.g., me), however, and doesn't probably need the help here.  In a straight-up numbers game, he'd probably lose as many mindless racists as he picks up in the black vote.

Agree also with TS on Schwarzenegger.  The guy was plunked in for one mission: make CA's claim against Enron, for fucking us raw on natural gas, vanish.  This he did within weeks (though it didn't ultimately save Enron) and he was then free to do as he pleased.  He wasn't actually all that bad of a governator.  I never trusted the guy due to various aspects of his history.  There was a push on the nasty right (e.g., the Lindsay Graham types) to get rid of the rule against foreign born being prez and I think they even referred to it as the Arnie effort.  This made me trust the guy even less of course.

Nope, Illinois, but I don't need to be from Georgia to know she is brilliant and would make a fine compliment to Trump's ticket.

U must be from GA.  
She was BRILLIANT, especially during the Iraq "War."
I figured he'd pick Chris Christie -- if only to get him out of his @$$....

SNL skit was great:  Chris Christie as Endorser / Hostage!   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzIsHMWCvy0

The 9 worst predictions about Trump's rise to the top









[...]



 Because he’s not a ‘real candidate’

“Taking into account name recognition, Trump’s net favorability rating (favorable minus unfavorable) of minus-32 percentage points stands out for its pure terribleness at this point in the campaign. Like his unfavorable rating, it is by far the worst of the 106 presidential candidates since 1980 who are in our database,” Harry Enten wrote for FiveThirtyEight on June 16, 2015, the day Trump declared himself a candidate.

The article featured a chart averaging polls that suggested Trump as the most hated Republican candidate among party members.

“For this reason alone, Trump has a better chance of cameoing in another ‘Home Alone’ movie with Macaulay Culkin — or playing in the NBA Finals — than winning the Republican nomination,” Enten wrote.

Because he’s ‘not really a Republican’

Prognosticator Nate Silver remarked in mid-September that Trump would not be the nominee because he is “not really a Republican.”

“He's very far to the right on immigration, but he also wants socialized medicine,” Silver said, according to Business Insider’s account. “He wants to tax the rich, right? There’s an alternate reality in which he decided to run as a Democrat instead — he wouldn’t have to change his policy positions all that much."

Silver also downplayed the importance of early polls, saying, “Calm down — it's not a tennis match where you're going back and forth all the time.”

Because he’ll be out by Iowa

Former Mitt Romney adviser and noted Trump critic Stuart Stevens took to CNN on Oct. 5 to boldly predict that the candidate would begin to falter in the polls and drop out of the race before a single vote was cast in the Iowa caucuses.

In the midst of college football season, Stevens responded to a question on which school Trump would represent in the Republican field by calling the tycoon’s campaign “Division III with a really trash-talking coach who says he’s going to take on and win the national championship even though they’re Division III but hasn’t won a game yet.

“I don’t think he’s going to be on the ballot by Feb. 1,” Stevens declared.

Because he ‘seriously’ won’t win

As Trump cemented his place as the party’s front-runner in mid-October, Bloomberg View columnist Jonathan Bernstein dismissed pundits who said that the insurgent candidate’s stock was rising.

“It’s true that Trump continues to maintain a comfortable lead in national polling — about 10 percentage points ahead of Ben Carson, and another 10 or more over the rest of the field. He’s probably still on top in Iowa, too, although Carson is close there. Despite that, nothing so far tells us that Trump has any serious chance of being the Republican nominee,” he wrote.

While acknowledging that his past prediction that Trump would drop out at the first sign of trouble had not come to pass, Bernstein suggested “a slow fade leading to a weak finish in Iowa is possible.”

“Or his rankings could stay capped at the 25 percent to 30 percent range, and he will lose once the further winnowing of the candidates produces one or two strong opponents,” he concluded. “In short, everything we know about how presidential nominations work says Trump isn’t going to be the nominee, or even come close.”

Because everyone will laugh at you for thinking that Trump will win

“The entire commentariat is going to feel a little silly when Marco Rubio wins every Republican primary,” New York Times columnist Ross Douthat tweeted Sept. 25.

Because it’s going to be Marco Rubio

Douthat’s Oct. 24 piece opened with a reminder to readers that four years ago to that week, he correctly predicted that Mitt Romney would be the party’s nominee.

While remarking that the 2016 Republican field is “stronger overall” than 2012’s crop, Douthat invited readers to play a version of the same “elimination game this time around.”

“No major party has ever nominated a figure like Trump or Carson, and I don’t believe that the 2016 GOP. will be the first,” Douthat wrote, dismissing all other candidates for a variety of reasons.

Douthat cautioned that while he predicted Rubio would win, he did so “gingerly, not boldly, because Rubio is a very strange sort of front-runner. He has never led a national poll.”

And he never did.

Because he hasn’t been tested

Writing for The New York Times’ The Upshot blog on Dec. 15, Nate Cohn wrote of Trump’s appeal as a factional candidate, suggesting parallels to Howard Dean, Pat Buchanan and Herman Cain.

“But it’s still too soon to say Mr. Trump is the front-runner for the nomination,” Cohn added. “He has a high floor but a low ceiling, and although he has weathered many controversies, the toughest days are yet to come.”

Cohn pointed to Cruz’s lead in Iowa in a recent poll but also cautioned against drawing conclusions about Trump being the front-runner based on past polling volatility at that point in the cycle.

“Mr. Trump shares a lot in common with strong factional candidates who have ultimately fallen short in recent cycles,” Cohn postulated. “He does not have broad appeal throughout the party; he is unacceptable to the party’s establishment; and there are reasons to believe that his high numbers may be driven by unsustainable factors — like voters who are less likely to turn out or who are responding to pollsters with ‘Trump’ because they haven’t heard any other name for four months.”

Because I’ll leave the party

Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol long pushed for the formation of a third party or independent challenger to Trump as the mogul continued his meteoric rise before and during the primary process. By the winter solstice, Kristol was soliciting party names for “the new party we'll have to start if Trump wins the GOP nomination.”

Speaking to ABC, where he is a contributor, Kristol deemed the tweet “semi-serious.”

“I don’t think Trump will be the nominee, so I don’t expect it to be an issue,” Kristol said. “But since I don’t think I could support Trump, and I’d like to have someone to vote for, if Trump were to be the nominee, I’d be open to a new party, probably for 2016 only — but you never know.”

Because he’s finally collapsing

“Pundits who underestimated Trump’s potential last autumn have been hesitant to come out and state what has now become apparent: He is probably not going to be the Republican nominee after all,” Jacob Weisberg wrote for Slate on April 8, three days after Cruz earned a temporary reprieve by trouncing Trump in Wisconsin.

He ticked through a series of Trump’s recent woes, including Corey Lewandowski being charged with battery for manhandling Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields, his remark that there should be punishment for women who have abortions (though Weisberg did not note that was in the context of the procedure being banned), as well as his refusal to take the use of nuclear weapons off the table in either Europe or the Middle East.

“Trump is now a wounded animal, and as hunters know, these can be the most dangerous kind. The Republican Party will have to use care in depriving him of a prize that he thinks belongs to him by rights,” Weisberg wrote of the-then burgeoning fight over delegates beyond the first ballot. “The best-case scenario for the GOP would be Trump facing facts and backing out of the primary before the Cleveland convention in mid-July.”



http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-pundits-wrong-predictions-222789#superComments


 

 

It's a third party candidate for honest, hardworking Democrats that's needed.  Someone who they can respect.

And sure enough, the cries for a third-party candidate are arising. Case in point: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-impending-nomination-means-its-time-for-a-third-candidate/2016/05/03/762186a4-108b-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html



But...I can't help wondering how many of these calls are sneaky. From what I remember reading, John Anderson's 1980 run took away more votes from Jimmy Carter than from Ronald Reagan, so arguably Anderson helped get Reagan in the White House.

Hi again, pardner!

Whatdayaknow?

Here come the sock puppets.

Clinton for President 2016

America is ready

A Woman for President

https://twitter.com/ClintonCurrency/status/724090758970642432

https://yobit.net/en/trade/CLINT/BTC

Indiana Data Analysis: Hillary Fails to Hit 50% of Her 2008 Vote Total, Trump Wallops Romney’s Performance











New presidential primary voting data compiled exclusively by Breitbart News in the wake of the Indiana GOP and Democratic primaries on Tuesday suggests a huge swing toward Republicans in the general election as Donald Trump secures the GOP nomination, while Hillary Clinton struggles in her own party.

President Barack Obama won Indiana in 2008, then lost it to Mitt Romney in 2012. It was one of the few states Obama won in 2008 that Romney turned red again in the general election.

But in the 2008 Democratic primary in Indiana, Clinton beat Obama. She received 646,282 votes, while a whopping total of 1,278,355 people voted in the 2008 Democratic primary.

Back in the 2012 GOP primary, Romney won the state with 410,635 votes. The total number of GOP primary voters was 635,589 that year.

Fast forward to 2016, and on both sides there have been dramatic shifts. GOP primary voting totals in Indiana are up 73.35 percent from 2012, up to 1,101,777 votes this go around. Also, Trump thumped Romney by winning 587,273 votes. That is more than 175,000 more votes—or more than 43 percent—more than the 2012 nominee.



http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/04/exclusive-data-analysis-indiana-vote-totals-show-clinton-crash-versus-2008-run-trump-soars-romney/

Please list them over at:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14353475

So far I got zip.

1)
2) ...

 

I am okay with whoever he chooses.  That's saying that I trust his judgement.


Hey I hear you, but I don't know that you can actually back that up with facts.  Bolded section.

OK it seems Trump won!
All other republicans gave up!
Now is just one question left: Trump or Hillary?
I personally don't like Hillary but when I compare her and Trump, i still choose her.
She is more qualified for the job and know what she is doing.
Trump just talking but have no idea what to do.