Trump!!!

[Mr. Deez]

Assuming this is so, wonder whom might be closest to any indictment, the one whose own party wants him out, or the one that seemingly is untouchable?

Indictments get issued in criminal cases, so Trump has no chance if being indicted, because his case is civil. He is being sued for fraud. The judge denied his motion for summary judgment, which means the judge found the evidence to be legally sufficient to support a verdict against Trump. That's usually not a high standard, but it does mean the court will allow the case to go to trial unless Trump settles it before then.

Hillary theoretically could be indicted, but most assume the DoJ would be too partisan to indict her, especially if doing so might put Trump in the White House. The only way she gets indicted is if a special prosecutor gets appointed (which should be a no-brainer but probably won't happen) or if she loses the election.

 

[GreenDragonSix]

Indictments get issued in criminal cases, so Trump has no chance if being inducted, because his case is civil. He is being sued for fraud. The judge denied his motion for summary judgment, which means the judge found the evidence to be legally sufficient to support a verdict against Trump. That's usually not a high standard, but it does mean the court will allow the case to go to trial unless Trump settles it before then.

Hillary theoretically could be indicted, but most assume the DoJ would be too partisan to indict her, especially if doing so might put Trump in the White House. The only way she gets indicted is if a special prosecutor gets appointed (which should be a no-brainer but probably won't happen) or if she loses the election.

I don't know in depth about the whole Trump University thing, but I don't see anything happening there to sway the election just as Hillary's email maelstrom doesn't look like to derail her presidential aspirations.

BUT....

Hillary does possess a history of questionable honesty, but then again, I do believe the Donald has a strange, muddy, and hidden history that hasn't been reported. I do think the media hasn't gone balls out attacking Trump yet, and damn, there is is much fodder he has amassed in just the past 11 or so months in his campaign that can be used against him.

After last night, it is looking more and more like a Trump vs. Clinton fight for the presidency.

Can't wait for their debates...I'll actually pop popcorn for that!

 

[Clean]

This is what you like to see - your Party's nominee going to trial for fraud and having to testify right before Election Day.

Doesn't seem to bother the Dems that Hillary SHOULD be going to trial. Only the crooked Obama Justice Dept. is holding that up until after the election.

As far as I know Trump hasn't sold any State Dept. favors for contributions to his "foundation". He hasn't mishandled "above top secret material" and compromised the nations security in the process. He hasn't openly and repeatedly lied to the public. I think Trump is a choir boy compared to Hillary.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I don't know in depth about the whole Trump University thing, but I don't see anything happening there to sway the election just as Hillary's email maelstrom doesn't look like to derail her presidential aspirations.

I don't think that's necessarily true. A fraud lawsuit isn't like a car wreck case where somebody simply goofed up by looking down at the radio for a split second and caused a collision. If the fraud case actually goes to trial, there's going to be evidence of Trump making material misrepresentations, evidence that he knew the they were false, and that he intended to defraud the plaintiffs. In other words, there's going to be evidence of sleaziness and that he's a bad guy, and that can hurt him. The stupidity defense (which Hillary is basically relying on in her e-mail mess) won't work in a fraud case.

Hillary does possess a history of questionable honesty, but then again, I do believe the Donald has a strange, muddy, and hidden history that hasn't been reported. I do think the media hasn't gone balls out attacking Trump yet, and damn, there is is much fodder he has amassed in just the past 11 or so months in his campaign that can be used against him.

I have no doubt that there's a pile of sleaze a mile high on Trump that is being withheld until after the GOP is dumb enough to nominate him. And of course the media has gone easy on him. That has happened for two reasons. First, the longer his candidacy lasts, the more money the media makes, because he brings ratings. It's like having the New York Yankees in the World Series or the Dallas Cowboys in the Super Bowl. Everybody's watching. Second, the media is ultimately dominated by partisan Democrats, and they know how beatable Trump is in a general election. Accordingly, his success in the GOP primary serves their financial and political interests.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Mary Pat Christie steals the show in Trumps speech last night. The reaction below is to Trumps' statement about HRC: "The only thing she's got going is the woman's card. And the beautiful thing is women don't like her, OK?" Trump said.



What the hell is Trump doing hammering Clinton with the "women's card"? This unconventional approach with eithe show he's a revolutionary politician successfully challenging preconceived views or he's an idiot.

Sure, Trump doesn't want to give HRC extra credit for being a woman like Obama got for being black in the last election. Given his previous statements on women I'm not sure this is the way to attack.

 

[Crockett]

Trump is in trouble. Word is Cruz is going to name Fiorina as his vice presidential choice in a day or two. Could work. Cruz comes across to some as angry and intimidating. Standing next to Fiorina, he looks comparatively cuddly.

 

[Joe Fan]

Trump is in trouble. .....

Trump is on track to win more GOP primary votes than any GOP contender in at least the last 36 years. Perhaps maybe ever.

1980 -- Ronald Reagan ~ 7.7 million votes
1988 -- George H. W. Bush 8.2 million
1992 -- George H. W. Bush 9.2 million
1996 -- Bob Dole 8.4 million
2000 -- George W. Bush 10.8 million (the modern record)
2004 -- George W. Bush 7.6 million (no challenger)
2008 -- John McCain 9.9 million
2012 -- Mitt Romney 9.8 million
2016 -- Donald Trump 10+ million (to date)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/twelv...rump-popular-vote-record-222510#ixzz470kv1udt

 

[Seattle Husker]

Trump is on track to win more GOP primary votes than any GOP contender in at least the last 36 years. Perhaps maybe ever.

1980 -- Ronald Reagan ~ 7.7 million votes
1988 -- George H. W. Bush 8.2 million
1992 -- George H. W. Bush 9.2 million
1996 -- Bob Dole 8.4 million
2000 -- George W. Bush 10.8 million (the modern record)
2004 -- George W. Bush 7.6 million (no challenger)
2008 -- John McCain 9.9 million
2012 -- Mitt Romney 9.8 million
2016 -- Donald Trump 10+ million (to date)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/twelv...rump-popular-vote-record-222510#ixzz470kv1udt

With the consistent shifts in states moving between primary and caucus processes it seems like you are comparing apples, oranges and cumquats. I'm not denying that Trump has excited a certain segment of the base and increased the base a bit. The real question will be how that plays in the general election. If I was a betting person, I'd bet this will be the most lopsided general election since Reagan/Mondale in terms of popular vote.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Trump is in trouble. Word is Cruz is going to name Fiorina as his vice presidential choice in a day or two. Could work. Cruz comes across to some as angry and intimidating. Standing next to Fiorina, he looks comparatively cuddly.

I think Cruz naming Fiorina is yet one more attempt by the #notTrump crowd to give Trump more rope to hang himself. If he Trump takes the bait and calls out Cruz for pandering to women, which he is, then he'll lose all but the most ignorant of women voters.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I actually think the Fiorina choice makes a lot of sense for a few reasons. First, Cruz's performance in the West Coast primaries are critical - his last chance. Fiorina is well-known and well-liked among California Republicans, so that's a significant help. Second, if you look back on Trump's moronic campaign, only one person forced him to back down - Carly Fiorina. He was unapologetic about every other assholic thing he said. If any choice could put Trump on the defensive, it's her.

Is she ideal for the general election? Probably not, but she's smart enough and disciplined enough not to screw up. I'd prefer it if she was more personable, but next to Hillary Clinton, I think she's personable enough.

Besides, contrary to Trump's comments, for her age, Carly looks pretty good. She's no Frauke Petry, but who is?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Mary Pat Christie steals the show in Trumps speech last night. The reaction below is to Trumps' statement about HRC: "The only thing she's got going is the woman's card. And the beautiful thing is women don't like her, OK?" Trump said.



What the hell is Trump doing hammering Clinton with the "women's card"? This unconventional approach with eithe show he's a revolutionary politician successfully challenging preconceived views or he's an idiot.

Sure, Trump doesn't want to give HRC extra credit for being a woman like Obama got for being black in the last election. Given his previous statements on women I'm not sure this is the way to attack.

And do bear in mind that at least according to Paul Manafort (Trump's new handler, former slumlord lobbyist, and former adviser to Vladimir Putin hand puppet Viktor Yanukovych), we're supposed to be getting the more traditional, more presidential, and more disciplined Donald Trump.

 

[NJlonghorn]

I heard a great quote on an ABC morning show today. I'm not sure who said it (male voice), but it was something like this:

People have been saying for months that there is a ceiling to how much support Trump can garner. It turns out it is a fabulous ceiling, with skylights and 24-karat gold trim.
​

 

[Musburger1]

If you didn't watch earlier, Trump actually came across as a statesman in today's foreign policy speech. There is a lot I agree with here.
1. New direction where the objective is not to overthrown dictators, but rather to maintain stability
2. Have Europe proportionally contribute to their own defense (NATO) or else drop out
3. Modernize the military, including the nuclear deterrent, but attempt diplomacy to work together with Russia and China where there are common interests.
4. Put America first. Stop emphasizing globalization and diversity.

He didn't ad lib and actually appeared Presidential. Whomever the speech writer was did an excellent job.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Like any other Donald Trump speech, he makes some valid points, but he blends it with so much nonsense and contradictory babble that it doesn't form a coherent policy.

 

[Seattle Husker]

If you didn't watch earlier, Trump actually came across as a statesman in today's foreign policy speech. There is a lot I agree with here.
1. New direction where the objective is not to overthrown dictators, but rather to maintain stability
2. Have Europe proportionally contribute to their own defense (NATO) or else drop out
3. Modernize the military, including the nuclear deterrent, but attempt diplomacy to work together with Russia and China where there are common interests.
4. Put America first. Stop emphasizing globalization and diversity.

He didn't ad lib and actually appeared Presidential. Whomever the speech writer was did an excellent job.

The speech was incoherent, filled with contradictions. It seems Germany's Foreign minister already disagrees with Trump's claim that he'll be the "best ally ever". Of course, that claim should be taken in the same vein as "women love me" and "Mexicans love me". The statements aren't backed up by any facts or logic.

 

[Musburger1]

You have to take the foreign ministers comments for what they are. He is another representative of the status quo which is pro NATO expansion, pro TTIP, and anti anything that might shake up the apple cart. Paul Craig Roberts also gave his views which are inrteresting, but not too encouraging.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/04/27/donald-trumps-foreign-policy-speech-paul-craig-roberts
/

 

[Musburger1]

If Trump is serious in changing the direction of foreign policy, this is what he's up against.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-nat...ttack-units-moscow-has-issued-warning/5522104

 

[Joe Fan]

I actually think the Fiorina choice makes a lot of sense for a few reasons. First, Cruz's performance in the West Coast primaries are critical - his last chance. .....

Agree with the Calif part (it's Hail Mary). But you left out money

 

[Joe Fan]

With the consistent shifts in states moving between primary and caucus processes it seems like you are comparing apples, oranges and cumquats. ....

I only stated facts. You were the one quating.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

we're supposed to be getting the more traditional, more presidential, and more disciplined Donald Trump.

[trump]Well, with all due respect... ehhhh yer kind of a loser!"[/trump]

 

[Musburger1]

Agree with the Calif part (it's Hail Mary). But you left out money

If Trump wants to make trade/offshoring an issue, he can tie that to Fiorina and make Cruz defend her actions. Trump has argued that high paying jobs were lost on trade deals and can hold up Cruz's VP choice as an example of why these deals are harmful.

 

[Clean]

Hugh Hewitt said this morning that if it's Trump vs Clinton he expects Trump to suffer at least a 40 state loss. That's Johnson-Goldwater or Reagan-Carter territory. This is all based on Trump having the historically high negatives.

Makes you wonder why all those dumbasses in LA are rioting. They should welcome a Trump nomination.

 

[Phil Elliott]

I don't buy the Hillary landslide vs. Trump. These are the same people who said he would peter out in February, March at the latest. Not saying he will win, but Hillary's got some pretty high negatives of her own. All these youngsters supporting Bernie are not going to just turn around and go vote for Hillary in the general.

 

[Clean]

I hope you're right Phil Elliott. I hope you're right.

Clinton has been pushed extremely far Left by Sanders. And, I'm sure that the Bernie people will hammer lots of ultra Left planks into the Democratic platform at the convention. I think a Clinton admin might make us wish for BO.

 

[Horn6721]

Seeing the idiots waving a Mexican flag as they protest Trump coupled with the news that illegals are sneaking in ( not all Mexicans but a majority) in greater numbers than BO admin wants us to know it would not be surprising if the Trump supporters would start to fight back more aggressively.
What does destroying a cop car have to do with anything?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Hugh Hewitt said this morning that if it's Trump vs Clinton he expects Trump to suffer at least a 40 state loss. That's Johnson-Goldwater or Reagan-Carter territory. This is all based on Trump having the historically high negatives.

I don't care what his negatives are. The electorate is far too polarized for anyone to lose that badly. Here are the states Trump will win. Utah (6), Wyoming (3), Oklahoma (7), Idaho (4), West Virginia (5), Arkansas (6), Alabama (9), Kentucky (8), Kansas (6), Tennessee (11), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Louisiana (8), Nebraska (Except its Second District) (5), Texas (38), Montana (3), Mississippi (6), Alaska (3), South Carolina (9), Indiana (11), Georgia (16), and Ohio (18). He'll lose everything else. That gives him 188 electoral votes. It's a decisive kick-in-the-balls, but it's not in the the Goldwater, Mondale, McGovern territory.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I don't care what his negatives are. The electorate is far too polarized for anyone to lose that badly. Here are the states Trump will win. Utah (6), Wyoming (3), Oklahoma (7), Idaho (4), West Virginia (5), Arkansas (6), Alabama (9), Kentucky (8), Kansas (6), Tennessee (11), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Louisiana (8), Nebraska (Except its Second District) (5), Texas (38), Montana (3), Mississippi (6), Alaska (3), South Carolina (9), Indiana (11), Georgia (16), and Ohio (18). He'll lose everything else. That gives him 188 electoral votes. It's a decisive kick-in-the-balls, but it's not in the the Goldwater, Mondale, McGovern territory.

Yesterday I claimed this would be a Reagan-Mondale beatdown. After listening to a focus group of Republican women from Indiana I see your point. The vast majority admitted he was sexist and that his statements on women bothered them yet they still held to the fact that they'll vote Trump in the Fall. Of the 8, only 1 said she would not support the Republican nominee.

 

[Phil Elliott]

After listening to a focus group of Republican women from Indian I see your point. The vast majority admitted he was sexist and that his statements on women bothered them yet they still held to the fact that they'll vote Trump in the Fall. Of the 8, only 1 said she would not support the Republican nominee.

A focus group of Dem women would yield the same results for Hillary, I am sure.

 

[Joe Fan]

Shows turnout changes from 2008 in the Super T states

 

[Seattle Husker]

Shows turnout changes from 2008 in the Super T states

That's a great reflection of the huge advantage the Republicans had coming into this election cycle. Does that D apathy and R energy advantage still persist?