World considers a Trump presidency, and many shudder

[boomerangutang]

I saw that "debate" ( they are anything but debates ), and Kelly was way out of line with a personal attack on Trump. I don't blame him for attacking her back.

There was no "personal attack", there was no "personal abuse" and it's time you stopped repeating the lie that there was.

She simply quoted his OWN words in which he'd described women, and asked him how he responded to Clinton's accusation that he was "part of the war on women".

In the second question, she quoted his own words in which he said he had "identified as a Democrat", stated (accurately) that his critics had accused him of being a Democrat, and asked him when he actually became a Republican.

I suggest you watch it again and stop pointlessly repeating this falsehood.

Trump puts forth an image of being a tough guy, but devolves to name-calling 9 year old brat in a NY minute. He couldn't handle a tough question so he went to denigrate the questioner for being female. Trump then went on to skip the following debate. When I was a 9 year old brat, we called people like that 'chicken liver.'

Good on Peter King, however...

Perhaps the plain talking Republican Congressman Peter King of Staten Island in NYC could reconsider and send the vial to Trump or Cruz or both...

In a sign of Ted Cruz's unpopularity in New York - and among many Republicans - Congressman Peter King has said he will "take cyanide" if the Texas senator wins the Republican presidential nomination.

Mr King is the former chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

"I hate Ted Cruz," he said on MSNBC's Morning Joe.

Mr Cruz's campaign did not immediately respond to a comment request.

Mr King previously said that any New Yorker who thinks of voting for Cruz "should have their head examined."

Mr King says he voted for John Kasich in the primary.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/19/donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton-heading-for-key-victories-in-ne1/

King said anybody who comes to New York wearing cowboy boots deserves to lose.

We recall Cruz is the guy who ran a political ad of himself frying bacon on the barrel of his rifle after firing off a couple of hundred rounds.

Ted Cruz says the universe was created in six historical days and is continuously sustained by God.

He is an educated man. He cant believe that.

Is he saying these things just to get the gullible, uneducated demographic?

He can believe it, literally. If pressed, he might say something like, "well, a 'day' could be code for 'many years'....." Bible-thumpers are slick when it comes to justifying Biblical non-science. I can enjoy reading the Bible for its cultural insights. Bible thumpers feel compelled to believe it literally, and that's their burden. Scarcely different than Q'ran fanatics.

[keemapoot]

As both Trump and Clinton have won big in New York, it's starting to look like Trump quite likely might lock up the nomination without have to fight at contested convention. As much as most of the world and most of the US doesn't like it, we might be obliged to accept the fact that this embarrassment of a man will be the one to go against Clinton to determine the next US President.

Lord, have mercy on our souls.

[jerico2017]

Ohh my...

There are still Americans who can think critically, think outside the box. People are in 2 groups mostly. Those who can, and those who can only talk.

We all know skills are important. Its time for those skill-less who just collect free stuff and whine too "get off the pot". Put some big boy pants on. Interesting how this is all being played out. Career politicians will soon be at the unemployment office or.... worse. I think most of them are traitors. Treasonous.

[Chicog]

As both Trump and Clinton have won big in New York, it's starting to look like Trump quite likely might lock up the nomination without have to fight at contested convention. As much as most of the world and most of the US doesn't like it, we might be obliged to accept the fact that this embarrassment of a man will be the one to go against Clinton to determine the next US President.

Lord, have mercy on our souls.

But that means lots more comedy gold to come.

[boomerangutang]

Change doesn't necessarily mean better. If it's raining outside, a neighbor can say, "darn, I wish the weather would change!" ....then along comes a tornado which rips house roofs off. That's change, but is it better?

As I've said b4, I'm ok with Trump going into the general election. As distasteful as Trump is, he's a bit less scary than Bible-thumping Cruz. And most bean counters will tell you that either Sanders or Clinton will beat either Republican candidate. VP candidates should be interesting. I think McCain picking Palin in 2008 was a factor in them getting

less votes than they would have if McC had made a better pick.

[stillbornagain]

Good on Peter King, however...

Perhaps the plain talking Republican Congressman Peter King of Staten Island in NYC could reconsider and send the vial to Trump or Cruz or both...

In a sign of Ted Cruz's unpopularity in New York - and among many Republicans - Congressman Peter King has said he will "take cyanide" if the Texas senator wins the Republican presidential nomination.

Mr King is the former chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

"I hate Ted Cruz," he said on MSNBC's Morning Joe.

Mr Cruz's campaign did not immediately respond to a comment request.

Mr King previously said that any New Yorker who thinks of voting for Cruz "should have their head examined."

Mr King says he voted for John Kasich in the primary.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/19/donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton-heading-for-key-victories-in-ne1/

King said anybody who comes to New York wearing cowboy boots deserves to lose.

We recall Cruz is the guy who ran a political ad of himself frying bacon on the barrel of his rifle after firing off a couple of hundred rounds.

Publicus, you are against Trump, well, can you stop turning up here to put up posts that are in line with Trump's supporters.

YOU go and demonise China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc., well, this is what actually makes Americans vote FOR Trump.

And stop undermining Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz IS better than Trump. Ted had that video of himself with bacon and a rifle. Publicus, you're not exactly AGAINST America's Crusade against Iran and the other Muslims. Shut up being against Cruz. And anyway, it's not as if Hillary is AGAINST America's Crusade against the Arabs. Hillary is actually all FOR the Crusade against the Arabs. Hillary did actually back the Bush Crusade against Iraq back in 2003.

Publicus, be careful who you are against. It might come back to bite your bu_ later on. We've all seen that with America's foreign policy.

"YOU go and demonise China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc., well, this is what actually makes Americans vote FOR Trump."

Shame on you, Publicus, for demonizing North Korea. In fact, double shame!!!

[thaibeachlovers]

I saw that "debate" ( they are anything but debates ), and Kelly was way out of line with a personal attack on Trump. I don't blame him for attacking her back.

There was no "personal attack", there was no "personal abuse" and it's time you stopped repeating the lie that there was.

She simply quoted his OWN words in which he'd described women, and asked him how he responded to Clinton's accusation that he was "part of the war on women".

In the second question, she quoted his own words in which he said he had "identified as a Democrat", stated (accurately) that his critics had accused him of being a Democrat, and asked him when he actually became a Republican.

I suggest you watch it again and stop pointlessly repeating this falsehood.

'tis you and she that are promoting the falsehood that the Donald hates women, when he has stated that he was only referring to Rosie O'Donnell http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/07/politics/donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-feud/

Had it been I on the stage instead of the Donald I would have taken Kelly's words to be an attack on me personally.

[slipperylobster]

I saw that "debate" ( they are anything but debates ), and Kelly was way out of line with a personal attack on Trump. I don't blame him for attacking her back.

There was no "personal attack", there was no "personal abuse" and it's time you stopped repeating the lie that there was.

She simply quoted his OWN words in which he'd described women, and asked him how he responded to Clinton's accusation that he was "part of the war on women".

In the second question, she quoted his own words in which he said he had "identified as a Democrat", stated (accurately) that his critics had accused him of being a Democrat, and asked him when he actually became a Republican.

I suggest you watch it again and stop pointlessly repeating this falsehood.

'tis you and she that are promoting the falsehood that the Donald hates women, when he has stated that he was only referring to Rosie O'Donnell http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/07/politics/donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-feud/

Had it been I on the stage instead of the Donald I would have taken Kelly's words to be an attack on me personally.

Trump is no wizard with words. He does get himself in a bit of trouble.

However, the press and the #notrumpers exaggerate it way out of proportion. To me, Trump is just telling it as it is. He is not a politician...and does not try to be politically correct. That is why he is still in the race. Many people, myself included, like a man that bucks the political system, and says what he feels.

Obama may hate RedNecks and Jews....for all we know. What difference would that of made? When you are in Office, you just can't do whatever you want. It doesn't work that way. Checks and Balances, my friend.

The US Presidency is not a dictatorship. Trump will be reminded, constantly, that he must treat all people equally. Laws don't just get passed because a President says so...or believes so.

So being chauvinist has what to do with whatever? Nothing. It's a non...fricking issue.

[Chicog]

I saw that "debate" ( they are anything but debates ), and Kelly was way out of line with a personal attack on Trump. I don't blame him for attacking her back.

There was no "personal attack", there was no "personal abuse" and it's time you stopped repeating the lie that there was.

She simply quoted his OWN words in which he'd described women, and asked him how he responded to Clinton's accusation that he was "part of the war on women".

In the second question, she quoted his own words in which he said he had "identified as a Democrat", stated (accurately) that his critics had accused him of being a Democrat, and asked him when he actually became a Republican.

I suggest you watch it again and stop pointlessly repeating this falsehood.

'tis you and she that are promoting the falsehood that the Donald hates women, when he has stated that he was only referring to Rosie O'Donnell http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/07/politics/donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-feud/

Had it been I on the stage instead of the Donald I would have taken Kelly's words to be an attack on me personally.

I can only assume you have difficulty understanding English, or you have not watched the video.

Here's the question to which you are referring. Please identify where Kelly has "promoted the falsehood that Donald hates women".

"Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don't use a politician's filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women. You've called women you don't like 'fat pigs,' 'dogs,' 'slobs' and 'disgusting animals.' ...

Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women's looks. You once told a contestant on 'Celebrity Apprentice' it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees.

Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?"

I have highlighted the relevant portions.

You can fabricate as much as you like.

Also, by the way, neither have I said Trump hates women.

I will say he's a fat chauvinistic turd, but he obviously likes a bit of eye candy and a subservient trophy wife or two.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Chicog

[Publicus]

Good on Peter King, however...

Perhaps the plain talking Republican Congressman Peter King of Staten Island in NYC could reconsider and send the vial to Trump or Cruz or both...

In a sign of Ted Cruz's unpopularity in New York - and among many Republicans - Congressman Peter King has said he will "take cyanide" if the Texas senator wins the Republican presidential nomination.

Mr King is the former chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

"I hate Ted Cruz," he said on MSNBC's Morning Joe.

Mr Cruz's campaign did not immediately respond to a comment request.

Mr King previously said that any New Yorker who thinks of voting for Cruz "should have their head examined."

Mr King says he voted for John Kasich in the primary.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/19/donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton-heading-for-key-victories-in-ne1/

King said anybody who comes to New York wearing cowboy boots deserves to lose.

We recall Cruz is the guy who ran a political ad of himself frying bacon on the barrel of his rifle after firing off a couple of hundred rounds.

Ted Cruz says the universe was created in six historical days and is continuously sustained by God.

He is an educated man. He cant believe that.

Is he saying these things just to get the gullible, uneducated demographic?

Kindly see my statement below thanks......

As both Trump and Clinton have won big in New York, it's starting to look like Trump quite likely might lock up the nomination without have to fight at contested convention. As much as most of the world and most of the US doesn't like it, we might be obliged to accept the fact that this embarrassment of a man will be the one to go against Clinton to determine the next US President.

Lord, have mercy on our souls.

...thanks again my friend.........as to this 'lord have mercy on our souls' quasi-Bible reading, I'd noted in another post and I reiterate here, I'm becoming more confident by the day that sometime around the middle of last year God finally decided to take the plunge and join the Democratic party.

I mean, how else could Democrats account for the GodSend named Trump

The world need not worry cause no matter who the Republican party nominee may be -- and it does increasingly look like Trump will get the collar -- no major political party in US history that is in such a madcap chaos as this Republican party is has won the election for Potus. Kasich included if lightning might strike the outhouse to put him covered in it by getting the nomination.

Most crutially, at least a third to 40% of registered Republicans say with a firm certainty they won't vote for Trump, or Cruz, or Kasich. The one-third-upwards grouping varies as to which Republicans would not vote for which one, but the R nominee whomever will lose one-third of his party in the general election.

They are the Gone Old Party as they tie onto their collective forehead the kamikaze sweat band and race to their planes.

RIP GOP, killed off in their civil war in which none of the three sides can win.

[Publicus]

Good on Peter King, however...

Perhaps the plain talking Republican Congressman Peter King of Staten Island in NYC could reconsider and send the vial to Trump or Cruz or both...

In a sign of Ted Cruz's unpopularity in New York - and among many Republicans - Congressman Peter King has said he will "take cyanide" if the Texas senator wins the Republican presidential nomination.

Mr King is the former chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

"I hate Ted Cruz," he said on MSNBC's Morning Joe.

Mr Cruz's campaign did not immediately respond to a comment request.

Mr King previously said that any New Yorker who thinks of voting for Cruz "should have their head examined."

Mr King says he voted for John Kasich in the primary.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/19/donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton-heading-for-key-victories-in-ne1/

King said anybody who comes to New York wearing cowboy boots deserves to lose.

We recall Cruz is the guy who ran a political ad of himself frying bacon on the barrel of his rifle after firing off a couple of hundred rounds.

Publicus, you are against Trump, well, can you stop turning up here to put up posts that are in line with Trump's supporters.

YOU go and demonise China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc., well, this is what actually makes Americans vote FOR Trump.

And stop undermining Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz IS better than Trump. Ted had that video of himself with bacon and a rifle. Publicus, you're not exactly AGAINST America's Crusade against Iran and the other Muslims. Shut up being against Cruz. And anyway, it's not as if Hillary is AGAINST America's Crusade against the Arabs. Hillary is actually all FOR the Crusade against the Arabs. Hillary did actually back the Bush Crusade against Iraq back in 2003.

Publicus, be careful who you are against. It might come back to bite your bu_ later on. We've all seen that with America's foreign policy.

"YOU go and demonise China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc., well, this is what actually makes Americans vote FOR Trump."

Shame on you, Publicus, for demonizing North Korea. In fact, double shame!!!

Indeed but given the poster for more than a few months has been making consciously and deliberately provocative and baiting posts to me, I finally broke down today to put him on the Ignore Honor Roll.

I've barely read any of his posts for quite a while now cause they're predictably glib and, as I say, nothing but willful baiting. Scolding lectures always. The only reason the poster has a case of the sore arse against Trump is because The Donald is saying menacing things about the poster's beloved China which are unacceptable to even the wretched CCP critic that this poster is.

I do of course enjoy tweaking all of the bois over on that side and they do recognise when they're getting their chain yanked, so they do receive their intended wounding by me. This one however is oblivious to any common sense or all ordinary sensibilities.

Again, the world need not be concerned about any Repubican winning this election because the Republican party is not longer an organised entity.

[Scotwight]

Indeed but given the poster for more than a few months has been making consciously and deliberately provocative and baiting posts to me, I finally broke down today to put him on the Ignore Honor Roll.

I've barely read any of his posts for quite a while now cause they're predictably glib and, as I say, nothing but willful baiting. Scolding lectures always. The only reason the poster has a case of the sore arse against Trump is because The Donald is saying menacing things about the poster's beloved China which are unacceptable to even the wretched CCP critic that this poster is.

I do of course enjoy tweaking all of the bois over on that side and they do recognise when they're getting their chain yanked, so they do receive their intended wounding by me. This one however is oblivious to any common sense or all ordinary sensibilities.

Again, the world need not be concerned about any Repubican winning this election because the Republican party is not longer an organised entity.

You wrote, "enjoy tweaking all of the bois" not wanting to miss any inside jokes - is that a gay slur? Can we now make jokes about other posters instead of discussing the issues? Does the above post signal a change in acceptable posting etiquette?

[Publicus]

Indeed but given the poster for more than a few months has been making consciously and deliberately provocative and baiting posts to me, I finally broke down today to put him on the Ignore Honor Roll.

I've barely read any of his posts for quite a while now cause they're predictably glib and, as I say, nothing but willful baiting. Scolding lectures always. The only reason the poster has a case of the sore arse against Trump is because The Donald is saying menacing things about the poster's beloved China which are unacceptable to even the wretched CCP critic that this poster is.

I do of course enjoy tweaking all of the bois over on that side and they do recognise when they're getting their chain yanked, so they do receive their intended wounding by me. This one however is oblivious to any common sense or all ordinary sensibilities.

Again, the world need not be concerned about any Repubican winning this election because the Republican party is not longer an organised entity.

You wrote, "enjoy tweaking all of the bois" not wanting to miss any inside jokes - is that a gay slur? Can we now make jokes about other posters instead of discussing the issues? Does the above post signal a change in acceptable posting etiquette?

Placing a particular poster on the Ignore Honor Roll is (oops ) a website function of long standing (although I again use my own terminology in respect of the Ignore function).

A poster usually mentions it in passing when he exercises the option so the cum laude laffer poster put on Ignore can be notified his posts will heretofore be unread by the poster taking the Ignore action.

Placing a poster in one's Ignore function is rare for most of us but it is done as it may be necessitated. This is more a high visibility focus in this particular instance than the usual passing mention of it.

Unless you have a declaratory statement rather than an interrogatory one let's get back to the main function of the website which is reading and writing, thx. Wouldn't want to leave the bois on the other side over there to run free or wildly without the due attention they deserve. Nothing personal of course.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Publicus

[Scotwight]

Indeed but given the poster for more than a few months has been making consciously and deliberately provocative and baiting posts to me, I finally broke down today to put him on the Ignore Honor Roll.

I've barely read any of his posts for quite a while now cause they're predictably glib and, as I say, nothing but willful baiting. Scolding lectures always. The only reason the poster has a case of the sore arse against Trump is because The Donald is saying menacing things about the poster's beloved China which are unacceptable to even the wretched CCP critic that this poster is.

I do of course enjoy tweaking all of the bois over on that side and they do recognise when they're getting their chain yanked, so they do receive their intended wounding by me. This one however is oblivious to any common sense or all ordinary sensibilities.

Again, the world need not be concerned about any Repubican winning this election because the Republican party is not longer an organised entity.

You wrote, "enjoy tweaking all of the bois" not wanting to miss any inside jokes - is that a gay slur? Can we now make jokes about other posters instead of discussing the issues? Does the above post signal a change in acceptable posting etiquette?

Placing a particular poster on the Ignore Honor Roll is (oops ) a website function of long standing (although I again use my own terminology in respect of the Ignore function).

A poster usually mentions it in passing when he exercises the option so the cum laude laffer poster put on Ignore can be notified his posts will heretofore be unread by the poster taking the Ignore action.

Placing a poster in one's Ignore function is rare for most of us but it is done as it may be necessitated. This is more a high visibility focus in this particular instance than the usual passing mention of it.

Unless you have a declaratory statement rather than an interrogatory one let's get back to the main function of the website which is reading and writing, thx. Wouldn't want to leave the bois on the other side over there to run free or wildly without the due attention they deserve. Nothing personal of course.

I'll ask again since you didn't respond, "is using bois spelling a gay slur?" In regards to you putting people on the ignore list - If you announce it , they win. If you don't - you win. Kind of like giving to a charity anonymously (if you tell the world you are grand stander only seeking self aggrandizement).

Getting back to the main purpose of the website I would refer you to your post above where you devote 815 characters to poster bashing as opposed to post discussion as per the intent of the forum and an example of hypocrisy if there ever was one.

There is no need for you to add to this discussion. In the future try discussing issues rather than the personalities (and/or sexual preferences if the spelling bois was indeed a gay slur) of the posters. Nothing personal of course.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Scotwight

[Publicus]

This guy speaks for millions of Republicans who have already said they will not vote for Trump and that they do not accept Cruz as the nominee either.

They constitute one-third to 40% of registered Republicans nationally.

New York Rep. Richard Hanna said Tuesday that his party has no hope of capturing the White House this year because its primary process favors those with "extreme" views while marginalizing moderate candidates.

"The Republican Party is not capable of nominating anyone who is electable nationally," Hanna said.

Hanna, serving his third term in the House, has opted to retire at year's end.

A pro-choice Republican who supports same-sex marriage, Hanna has long been a maverick known to roam off the party reservation, particularly on social issues. (emphasis added)

http://www.thedailystar.com/news/local_news/hanna-gop-s-extremism-will-make-it-lose/article_e88ad354-bdef-5c81-aaf7-cb6fc76b430d.html

The winner in November will need more than 65 million total votes nationally to be the winner.

In 2012 Mitt Romney got 61 million popular votes while Barack Obama got 66 million of 'em. Neither Trump nor Cruz will get 61 million popular votes. Neither as the nominee would come anywhere remotely close to just 60 million total popular votes. Kasich would get his 60+ million and still lose.

Recall in 1964 the radical rightwing Republican Sen Barry Goldwater got 38.1% of the (un) popular vote, won six states, and he got 52 Electoral College votes with 270 needed to win. Back then half the Republican party bailed on him too, led by suburban married R women who this year are fleeing from Trump or Cruz as the R party nominee.

Without married suburban Republican women, the R party from coast to coast and border to border is sunk. And that is but one among a proliferation of voting constituencies the Republican party has already irreversibly alienated in this quadrennial election year.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Publicus

[Publicus]

Indeed but given the poster for more than a few months has been making consciously and deliberately provocative and baiting posts to me, I finally broke down today to put him on the Ignore Honor Roll.

I've barely read any of his posts for quite a while now cause they're predictably glib and, as I say, nothing but willful baiting. Scolding lectures always. The only reason the poster has a case of the sore arse against Trump is because The Donald is saying menacing things about the poster's beloved China which are unacceptable to even the wretched CCP critic that this poster is.

I do of course enjoy tweaking all of the bois over on that side and they do recognise when they're getting their chain yanked, so they do receive their intended wounding by me. This one however is oblivious to any common sense or all ordinary sensibilities.

Again, the world need not be concerned about any Repubican winning this election because the Republican party is not longer an organised entity.

You wrote, "enjoy tweaking all of the bois" not wanting to miss any inside jokes - is that a gay slur? Can we now make jokes about other posters instead of discussing the issues? Does the above post signal a change in acceptable posting etiquette?

Placing a particular poster on the Ignore Honor Roll is (oops ) a website function of long standing (although I again use my own terminology in respect of the Ignore function).

A poster usually mentions it in passing when he exercises the option so the cum laude laffer poster put on Ignore can be notified his posts will heretofore be unread by the poster taking the Ignore action.

Placing a poster in one's Ignore function is rare for most of us but it is done as it may be necessitated. This is more a high visibility focus in this particular instance than the usual passing mention of it.

Unless you have a declaratory statement rather than an interrogatory one let's get back to the main function of the website which is reading and writing, thx. Wouldn't want to leave the bois on the other side over there to run free or wildly without the due attention they deserve. Nothing personal of course.

I'll ask again since you didn't respond, "is using bois spelling a gay slur?" In regards to you putting people on the ignore list - If you announce it , they win. If you don't - you win. Kind of like giving to a charity anonymously (if you tell the world you are grand stander only seeking self aggrandizement).

Getting back to the main purpose of the website I would refer you to your post above where you devote 815 characters to poster bashing as opposed to post discussion as per the intent of the forum and an example of hypocrisy if there ever was one.

There is no need for you to add to this discussion. In the future try discussing issues rather than the personalities (and/or sexual preferences if the spelling bois was indeed a gay slur) of the posters. Nothing personal of course.

You wrote, "enjoy tweaking all of the bois" not wanting to miss any inside jokes - is that a gay slur?

There is no need for you to add to this discussion.

Well that's a relief

So I'd simply invite you to visit here: http://www.readwritethink.org/classroom-resources/lesson-plans/building-reading-comprehension-through-139.html

Edited by Publicus for spacing.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Publicus

[Thechook]

At least he will throw out all this cancerous political correctness. Wish the Aussie P.M would grow a pair of balls and man up. I'm sure trump won't be selling the U.S to China like what has happened to Australia.

[Publicus]

Las Vegas odds are pretty one-sided today in almost every respect.

To be elected Potus

HRC has new odds of 3-10 or the probability percentage of 76.7% (plus 7% from April 8th) (Barack Obama went into election day 2012 at 1-5 or 83%)

Donald Trump has odds of 4-1 or the probability percentage of 20% (plus 5% from April 8th)

Ted Cruz has odds of 14-1 or the percentage of 6.6%

Bernie has odds of 16-1 or the percentage of 5.8%

John Kasich has odds of 25-1 or 3.8%

To be the D party nominee

HRC has new odds of 1-33 or the probability percentage of 97%

Bernie is at 12-1

To be the R party nominee

Donald Trump has odds of 2-5 or the probability percentage of 71.4% (plus 19% from April 8th)

Ted Cruz has odds of 5-2 or the percentage of 28.5% (minus 8% from April 8th)

K has odds of 12-1 or 7.6%

Winning Party on November 8th no candidate names

Democratic Party has odds of 1-3 or the probability of 75%

Republican Party has odds of 9-4 or the probability of 30.7%

Independent has odds of 50-1 (1.9%)

There's a long way to go yet and the conventions will mold the election from the end of July forward. Odds (probability) are a futures market that factors in all considerations to include the weather (the tiny probability of lightning striking). Odds taken with scientific polls and one's sense and analysis help to get a handle on where things seem to be going.

The only notable shifting of the odds has occurred in the R contest for the nomination, focused almost entirely on the probability of Trump succeeding. The odds now have Trump as the decidedly odds-on favorite. In the other contests, for Potus, D party nomination, winning party, the odds have remained consistent and have only widened.

[Linzz]

Well I'm glad that the personality politics and discussions of writing styles and other affectations on here have ceased.

The subject is many shudder at a Trump Presidency, but I want to digress a little too. Never mind shuddering at Trump. A Democratic victory is more important than the rule of law. Shudder already.

Some points:

HRC will not be held accountable

Obama has said the mishandling of classified material is not necessarily a criminal offense.

Obama calls Snowden a traitor for leaking material while excuses Clinton for selling influence as Secretary of state to up to 20 foreign governments.

Clinton's department approved of $165 billion worth of arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors.

Double standard.

Why is that not corruption and not an imprisonable offense? Why is not that cash torrent from foreign governments not a matter of national security?

Clinton won't release her closed door transcripts to Goldman Sachs.

Speeches she made at a $675,000 price tag because she says nobody is interested.

She could release them to dispel the notion that it's not an insider game. But she won't because they would be damning. Releasing them would show how much she is under their influence and their future representative in the White House..Goldman Sach's influence extends into government in the EU as well with ex Goldman Sach's Mario Draghi as President of the European Central Bank.

Think about it and shudder.

If Trump becomes the nominee the bankers will be backing Hillary with unlimited finance to ensure her Presidency. They do not want to be at risk by Trump changing the rules. They won't care if Cruz is the nominee since he's involved with Goldman Sachs as well. I'm sure the Dems would prefer to run against Cruz. Trump is an unknown quantity.

Obama is even seeking an 18 % tax free increase in pay for past Presidents after he leaves the White House. While that may not be corrupt, it's the money, follow the money, it's all about the money everywhere, including the GOP.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/something-else-clinton-is-hiding-is-enough-to-wipe-out-her-campaign/

[CousinEddie]

Well I'm glad that the personality politics and discussions of writing styles and other affectations on here have ceased.

The subject is many shudder at a Trump Presidency, but I want to digress a little too. Never mind shuddering at Trump. A Democratic victory is more important than the rule of law. Shudder already.

Some points:

HRC will not be held accountable

Obama has said the mishandling of classified material is not necessarily a criminal offense.

Obama calls Snowden a traitor for leaking material while excuses Clinton for selling influence as Secretary of state to up to 20 foreign governments.

Clinton's department approved of $165 billion worth of arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors.

Double standard.

Why is that not corruption and not an imprisonable offense? Why is not that cash torrent from foreign governments not a matter of national security?

Clinton won't release her closed door transcripts to Goldman Sachs.

Speeches she made at a $675,000 price tag because she says nobody is interested.

She could release them to dispel the notion that it's not an insider game. But she won't because they would be damning. Releasing them would show how much she is under their influence and their future representative in the White House..Goldman Sach's influence extends into government in the EU as well with ex Goldman Sach's Mario Draghi as President of the European Central Bank.

Think about it and shudder.

If Trump becomes the nominee the bankers will be backing Hillary with unlimited finance to ensure her Presidency. They do not want to be at risk by Trump changing the rules. They won't care if Cruz is the nominee since he's involved with Goldman Sachs as well. I'm sure the Dems would prefer to run against Cruz. Trump is an unknown quantity.

Obama is even seeking an 18 % tax free increase in pay for past Presidents after he leaves the White House. While that may not be corrupt, it's the money, follow the money, it's all about the money everywhere, including the GOP.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/something-else-clinton-is-hiding-is-enough-to-wipe-out-her-campaign/

I advise you back away from the right wing fake news.

[Linzz]

Well I'm glad that the personality politics and discussions of writing styles and other affectations on here have ceased.

The subject is many shudder at a Trump Presidency, but I want to digress a little too. Never mind shuddering at Trump. A Democratic victory is more important than the rule of law. Shudder already.

Some points:

HRC will not be held accountable

Obama has said the mishandling of classified material is not necessarily a criminal offense.

Obama calls Snowden a traitor for leaking material while excuses Clinton for selling influence as Secretary of state to up to 20 foreign governments.

Clinton's department approved of $165 billion worth of arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors.

Double standard.

Why is that not corruption and not an imprisonable offense? Why is not that cash torrent from foreign governments not a matter of national security?

Clinton won't release her closed door transcripts to Goldman Sachs.

Speeches she made at a $675,000 price tag because she says nobody is interested.

She could release them to dispel the notion that it's not an insider game. But she won't because they would be damning. Releasing them would show how much she is under their influence and their future representative in the White House..Goldman Sach's influence extends into government in the EU as well with ex Goldman Sach's Mario Draghi as President of the European Central Bank.

Think about it and shudder.

If Trump becomes the nominee the bankers will be backing Hillary with unlimited finance to ensure her Presidency. They do not want to be at risk by Trump changing the rules. They won't care if Cruz is the nominee since he's involved with Goldman Sachs as well. I'm sure the Dems would prefer to run against Cruz. Trump is an unknown quantity.

Obama is even seeking an 18 % tax free increase in pay for past Presidents after he leaves the White House. While that may not be corrupt, it's the money, follow the money, it's all about the money everywhere, including the GOP.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/something-else-clinton-is-hiding-is-enough-to-wipe-out-her-campaign/

I advise you back away from the right wing fake news.

Yeah right. Investigate yourself instead of wanting to remain in your left wing bubble. But I understand red and pretty pink roses and heady socialist scent is too intoxicating. Bought and sold. Too bad, another brick in the wall

[CousinEddie]

Well I'm glad that the personality politics and discussions of writing styles and other affectations on here have ceased.

The subject is many shudder at a Trump Presidency, but I want to digress a little too. Never mind shuddering at Trump. A Democratic victory is more important than the rule of law. Shudder already.

Some points:

HRC will not be held accountable

Obama has said the mishandling of classified material is not necessarily a criminal offense.

Obama calls Snowden a traitor for leaking material while excuses Clinton for selling influence as Secretary of state to up to 20 foreign governments.

Clinton's department approved of $165 billion worth of arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors.

Double standard.

Why is that not corruption and not an imprisonable offense? Why is not that cash torrent from foreign governments not a matter of national security?

Clinton won't release her closed door transcripts to Goldman Sachs.

Speeches she made at a $675,000 price tag because she says nobody is interested.

She could release them to dispel the notion that it's not an insider game. But she won't because they would be damning. Releasing them would show how much she is under their influence and their future representative in the White House..Goldman Sach's influence extends into government in the EU as well with ex Goldman Sach's Mario Draghi as President of the European Central Bank.

Think about it and shudder.

If Trump becomes the nominee the bankers will be backing Hillary with unlimited finance to ensure her Presidency. They do not want to be at risk by Trump changing the rules. They won't care if Cruz is the nominee since he's involved with Goldman Sachs as well. I'm sure the Dems would prefer to run against Cruz. Trump is an unknown quantity.

Obama is even seeking an 18 % tax free increase in pay for past Presidents after he leaves the White House. While that may not be corrupt, it's the money, follow the money, it's all about the money everywhere, including the GOP.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/something-else-clinton-is-hiding-is-enough-to-wipe-out-her-campaign/

I advise you back away from the right wing fake news.

Yeah right. Investigate yourself instead of wanting to remain in your left wing bubble. But I understand red and pretty pink roses and heady socialist scent is too intoxicating. Bought and sold. Too bad, another brick in the wall

ding dong ding dong ding dong

[Linzz]

Well I'm glad that the personality politics and discussions of writing styles and other affectations on here have ceased.

The subject is many shudder at a Trump Presidency, but I want to digress a little too. Never mind shuddering at Trump. A Democratic victory is more important than the rule of law. Shudder already.

Some points:

HRC will not be held accountable

Obama has said the mishandling of classified material is not necessarily a criminal offense.

Obama calls Snowden a traitor for leaking material while excuses Clinton for selling influence as Secretary of state to up to 20 foreign governments.

Clinton's department approved of $165 billion worth of arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors.

Double standard.

Why is that not corruption and not an imprisonable offense? Why is not that cash torrent from foreign governments not a matter of national security?

Clinton won't release her closed door transcripts to Goldman Sachs.

Speeches she made at a $675,000 price tag because she says nobody is interested.

She could release them to dispel the notion that it's not an insider game. But she won't because they would be damning. Releasing them would show how much she is under their influence and their future representative in the White House..Goldman Sach's influence extends into government in the EU as well with ex Goldman Sach's Mario Draghi as President of the European Central Bank.

Think about it and shudder.

If Trump becomes the nominee the bankers will be backing Hillary with unlimited finance to ensure her Presidency. They do not want to be at risk by Trump changing the rules. They won't care if Cruz is the nominee since he's involved with Goldman Sachs as well. I'm sure the Dems would prefer to run against Cruz. Trump is an unknown quantity.

Obama is even seeking an 18 % tax free increase in pay for past Presidents after he leaves the White House. While that may not be corrupt, it's the money, follow the money, it's all about the money everywhere, including the GOP.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/something-else-clinton-is-hiding-is-enough-to-wipe-out-her-campaign/

I advise you back away from the right wing fake news.

Yeah right. Investigate yourself instead of wanting to remain in your left wing bubble. But I understand red and pretty pink roses and heady socialist scent is too intoxicating. Bought and sold. Too bad, another brick in the wall

ding dong ding dong ding dong

Come on Cousin Eddie, instead of making music, take apart my points, I am very happy to be proved wrong and will acknowledge as much if established. Convince me to become a Democrat. Provocation and rebuttal is fine by me, this is what the forum is for = the exchange of ideas, but it does take effort.

[boomerangutang]

Here's an unsolicited suggestion for all the Republican wheeler dealers who don't like how Trump has taken over the party: Come on over to the sensible side. Yes, there is another party, and it doesn't rely on name-calling, excuses, flip-flopping policy ideas, etc. Its name starts with a D. It's easy to sign up, takes about 3 minutes.

At least he will throw out all this cancerous political correctness. Wish the Aussie P.M would grow a pair of balls and man up. I'm sure trump won't be selling the U.S to China like what has happened to Australia.

Australia didn't allow a Chinese company to buy their largest mining operation. That's commendable. As for selling valuable real estate and other stuff, I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if Aussies are selling a whole bunch of valuable stuff to Chinese. In NYC, the biggest buyers of real estate are Chinese, and Trump is a major player in that. He would sell his mother's kidney if he could get enough to buy a nice deli sandwich.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

[boomerangutang]

Paul Manafort, a top Trump strategist, met privately with delegates on Thursday to assuage lingering concerns about the New York businessman.

"When he's out on the stage, when he's talking about the kinds of things he's talking about on the stump, he's projecting an image that's for that purpose," Manafort said in a private meeting with delegates.

"He gets it," Manafort said of Trump's need to moderate his style in a general-election race. "The part that he's been playing is evolving into the part that now you've been expecting, but he wasn't ready for, because he had first to complete the first phase. The negatives will come down. The image is going to change."

Cruz seized on the remarks in a radio interview late Thursday; "I'm actually going to give Trump a little bit of credit here," Cruz said. "He's being candid. He's telling us he's lying to us. You look at what his campaign manager says — is that this is just an act. This is just a show."

source

Boomer's comment: Trump's campaign manager is confirming what many of us have known all along: Trump's campaign is a multi-million dollar sales show.

We, the dumb & gullible general public are supposed to now assume that the Trump who emerges as the Rep candidate will be thoughtful, knowledgeable and decent. Yet, it's just as likely the real Trump will be even more of a quick-to-anger name-calling uninformed blovator than he was on the campaign trail. Why should we assume that he will change for the better? Because someone said so? Look at any Mussolini-type leaders in history, and you'll see that it's much more likely they get worse when they grab the reins of power, rather than better.

[JDGRUEN]

Please can someone declare this argument or food fight to be off topic and remove it otherwise this thread is going to nothing but WALLPAPER

[Scott]

You are welcome to stop reading and posting any time you wish.

[LawrenceChee]

Trump is an idiot , I can imagine all the baboon he will be when he gets his ultimate sandpit toy ....

His weakness is ego and woman and that's going to be some tricky times for his secret service agents managing that if he gets elected ....

If he visits Thailand , I do hope he will be brace himself enough to try something different go ask for a date with poydtreechada ...have a look at her Instagram pics

My missus showed them to me the other day and that's stunning beauty

Edited April 24, 2016 by LawrenceChee

[chuckd]

Trump is an idiot , I can imagine all the baboon he will be when he gets his ultimate sandpit toy ....

His weakness is ego and woman and that's going to be some tricky times for his secret service agents managing that if he gets elected ....

If he visits Thailand , I do hope he will be brace himself enough to try something different go ask for a date with poydtreechada ...have a look at her Instagram pics

My missus showed them to me the other day and that's stunning beauty

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1461540866.674850.jpg

"His weakness is ego and woman and that's going to be some tricky times for his secret service agents managing that if he gets elected ...."

The Secret Service had eight years experience handling the woman problem with Bill Clinton in the White House.

They have many years experience handling overly large egos, particularly the last 7+ years.

I'm quite sure they can take care of things.

Edited April 25, 2016 by chuckd