World considers a Trump presidency, and many shudder

[lannarebirth]

If I was an Israeli I would be very reassured by that given his track record with investors in the Trump Ocean Resort Baja and those who enrolled in his "University". Not for nothing does Trump employ an army of lawyers.

I maintain that if someone gave $35k to Trump University and was wholly dissatisfied with their experience they will have gotten at least $35k in business education. I'll be forever grateful that in my first foray into financial markets that I lost money. It gave me an education it might have otherwise taken me years to learn.

My guess is that many of those who lost money in Trump adventures would not agree with you.

Indeed, it is difficult for the hardcore conservative right to criticise Trump (Cruz also) while simultaneously stepping forward gently to say something kind about Sanders, then jumping out at Clinton while tossing the net over Clinton's supporters.

Quite the obvious contradiction or so it could seem.

The tact and approach of the hard conservative right in this campaign are indeed unmistakable.

I'll bet you see the "hardcore conservative right" even in your dreams. I've got news for you. People can have a different opinion than you do, but that doesn't make them "hardcore conservative right". It may just mean that you have a very skewed view of the American electorate. Even people to the left of your opinions are considered "hardcore conservative right" by you. Maybe its time to think about retiring from this game you seem to love so much. You can't even see who the players are anymore.

[lannarebirth]

Bloomberg would have been a great choice but as he quoted in WSJ today , he knows he has a low chance of winning as he is tough , business savvy and he doesn't spout rubbish that would appeal for votes

Wisely he has step aside , however he has also mentioned both candidates on both parties are not anyone he would endorse either and that's accurate.

Both Hilary and Trump are poor choices and it would be an interesting 4 years of dumb leadership

Let me translate that for you. "I'd have to spend about a billion dollars and I'd still lose. No thank you."

[Publicus]

I maintain that if someone gave $35k to Trump University and was wholly dissatisfied with their experience they will have gotten at least $35k in business education. I'll be forever grateful that in my first foray into financial markets that I lost money. It gave me an education it might have otherwise taken me years to learn.

My guess is that many of those who lost money in Trump adventures would not agree with you.

Indeed, it is difficult for the hardcore conservative right to criticise Trump (Cruz also) while simultaneously stepping forward gently to say something kind about Sanders, then jumping out at Clinton while tossing the net over Clinton's supporters.

Quite the obvious contradiction or so it could seem.

The tact and approach of the hard conservative right in this campaign are indeed unmistakable.

I'll bet you see the "hardcore conservative right" even in your dreams. I've got news for you. People can have a different opinion than you do, but that doesn't make them "hardcore conservative right". It may just mean that you have a very skewed view of the American electorate. Even people to the left of your opinions are considered "hardcore conservative right" by you. Maybe its time to think about retiring from this game you seem to love so much. You can't even see who the players are anymore.

Maybe its time to think about retiring from this game you seem to love so much.

Losing it I see.

At times like this the barely contained perturbed are invited to consider reading the Signature....

[LawrenceChee]

Bloomberg would have been a great choice but as he quoted in WSJ today , he knows he has a low chance of winning as he is tough , business savvy and he doesn't spout rubbish that would appeal for votes

Wisely he has step aside , however he has also mentioned both candidates on both parties are not anyone he would endorse either and that's accurate.

Both Hilary and Trump are poor choices and it would be an interesting 4 years of dumb leadership

Let me translate that for you. "I'd have to spend about a billion dollars and I'd still lose. No thank you."

Smart man I'm a business man and believe that's a good approach

Better than the bankrupt trump

[keemapoot]

Bloomberg would have been a great choice but as he quoted in WSJ today , he knows he has a low chance of winning as he is tough , business savvy and he doesn't spout rubbish that would appeal for votes

Wisely he has step aside , however he has also mentioned both candidates on both parties are not anyone he would endorse either and that's accurate.

Both Hilary and Trump are poor choices and it would be an interesting 4 years of dumb leadership

Let me translate that for you. "I'd have to spend about a billion dollars and I'd still lose. No thank you."

Smart man I'm a business man and believe that's a good approach

Better than the bankrupt trump

He's not exactly bankrupt or in immediate danger, but he could not finance an third-party run, as he only has cash of about 300 million according to reports. That's the great unknown is the extent of the shell game this guy has played to try to convey that he is a multi-billionaire.

I'm sure there are tons of investigative reporters and forensic accountants working on this right now, and I'm looking forward to hearing the truth of his net worth. I'm guessing it will be very south of a one billion.

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that Mitt Romney is richer at $250 million in the end.

[lannarebirth]

.

Indeed, it is difficult for the hardcore conservative right to criticise Trump (Cruz also) while simultaneously stepping forward gently to say something kind about Sanders, then jumping out at Clinton while tossing the net over Clinton's supporters.

Quite the obvious contradiction or so it could seem.

The tact and approach of the hard conservative right in this campaign are indeed unmistakable.

I'll bet you see the "hardcore conservative right" even in your dreams. I've got news for you. People can have a different opinion than you do, but that doesn't make them "hardcore conservative right". It may just mean that you have a very skewed view of the American electorate. Even people to the left of your opinions are considered "hardcore conservative right" by you. Maybe its time to think about retiring from this game you seem to love so much. You can't even see who the players are anymore.

Maybe its time to think about retiring from this game you seem to love so much.

Losing it I see.

At times like this the barely contained perturbed are invited to consider reading the Signature....

While you may see everyone as a "bastard trying to grind you down", I don't. Maybe you're the bastard trying to grind everyone else down. Something to think about anyway.

[Linzz]

Ex right wing nut Hillary was a Goldwater girl

In 1964 when Goldwater got creamed in the general election Hillary Clinton the Goldwater Girl was younger than I was (still is ha ha) and I too supported Barry Goldwater. I was too young to vote (fortunately) but by 1968 I'd come to my political senses and voted for Hubert Humphrey against Richard Nixon and I've been off to the races ever since. Which shows that your lecturing and scolding gets misplaced rather quickly.

You have great idealism and faith in middle America taming it's extremes and thus repeating the past.

The United States has never lurched to fascism or communist. It never will to include electing Trump who is nothing more than a radical wildman. Trump's wild campaign to seize the Republican party nomination may succeed as Goldwater did in his rightwing rebellion, but Trump would never be elected Potus. Count on it. The objective factual historical record shows the United States electorate does not go to ideological or personally radical extremes in these ways. The Civil War was drastic but it settled the matter of political extremes...forever.

Tony Blair has said he does not recognize the political landscape any more,

He never did recognize it globally which makes Tony Blair one of the most discredited UK prime ministers of its history. Tommy Rot could have beat the Torries in 1997. Boris Johnson too can commiserate with Donald Trump in their stinging political retirement from the respective national scene.

(Can socialism deal with america's problems, it hasn't in the last 8 years, more helped to create them?)

The United States does not have socialism. Socialism is the government ownership and operating of the means of transportation, communication, production. Only the radical whingenuts of wingnuttia call the past eight years socialism. The whackjob right wouldn't know socialism from USA progressivism if it up and smacked 'em as if they stepped on a rake.

Stalin is right: It isn't the people who decide anything, it's the vote counters who decide everything, so your vote means nothing.

Stalin was right about that in Russia as well as in your book. Applies also in Cuba, CCP China, Rwanda and a lot of same or similar places. My vote counts and so does your vote, assuming you do vote somewhere.

Thanks for all of that in your post. Without rightwhingenuts it would get boring around here.

Haha! for someone who claims he doesn't do predictions, its a hallmark, ("count on it") you need to revisit your own posts.

So you have migrated from "Rightwingnuttia to Leftwingnuttia". I was opposed to Goldwater when you and Hillary supported him. He was a dangerous man.

Agree with you on Tony Blair but it was still worth quoting his observation. Religion/politics mix saw him and Bush oversee a tragic mistake.

Progressivism is Socialism's child. I never said USA was a socialist country. I asked if the last 8 years were influenced by pro socialist ideas.

In the past FDR's New Deal was considered socialist but was never called that because of peoples aversion to anything socialist.

The 8 hour day, food stamps, 40 hour week, minimum wage, social security were secured as a check on rampant capitalism, and could be called socialism, but it was rugged individualism that made America great. I have mixed views on this, equal opportunity is great but equal outcomes is an impossibility and thus a distortion. Should charity spring from freedom to give or from confiscation? Is it envy taxes when taxation of the "rich" is supported by people who love to covet their neighbor's goods? Should your taxes go to corporate welfare and the bail out of banks? Or support the military and foreign wars you disagree with? Many questions which are not easy to answer unless you are already committed to Left or Right "wingnuttia".

Bernie Sanders (whom I like most of the contenders because of some subconscious reason perhaps he seems personable, which should not be the criteria btw) calls himself a democratic socialist. But more taxes? While you predict Trump will never be President, and unlike you I have no idea, I maintain that if he did, the Office would have a huge moderating effect even if he intends to carry out his threats. Which in my view is simply a marketing exercise to capture the discontented vote. Hence why the torture issue appeals but in reality prisoners will lie to alleviate the pain.

Your vote counts? Your vote already does not count if cronyism continues through big banks and corporations to buy favor and influence from politicians that are meant to represent you, rigging laws and regulations for their benefit.

I cannot vote because I am not an American as I've said several times.

Unlike you I come from "Neitherwingnuttia" if you like, and try to keep an open mind. Your writings try to be objective and authoritative but usually revert to an emotional name calling exercise which betrays that intention and only makes you feel good. Shame really.

So you have migrated from "Rightwingnuttia to Leftwingnuttia". I was opposed to Goldwater when you and Hillary supported him. He was a dangerous man.

Agree with you on Tony Blair but it was still worth quoting his observation. Religion/politics mix saw him and Bush oversee a tragic mistake.

Progressivism is Socialism's child. I never said USA was a socialist country. I asked if the last 8 years were influenced by pro socialist ideas.

In the past FDR's New Deal was considered socialist but was never called that because of peoples aversion to anything socialist.

The 8 hour day, food stamps, 40 hour week, minimum wage, social security were secured as a check on rampant capitalism, and could be called socialism, but it was rugged individualism that made America great.

You excluded your original post from my reply. It's a wise tactical decision due to all the backtracking immediately above.

The self-pronounced open mind comes from the right of the political spectrum as one can easily identify in the point of view, using the word socialism about the Obama presidency, challenging the posters you choose to challenge and to pursue, and in many other ways.

And like wow, I haven't heard "rugged individualism" even from the extremist rightwhingers of past decades so you're really out of time in your referencing of it in the USA, if it in fact ever existed beyond a figment of the imagination of the Goldwater right. That's how long ago. Do try to keep up plse thx.

As for asserting as you cite Josef Stalin that my vote doesn't count, I'll decide that thanks, just as black Americans long ago decided their vote counts and decided to vote 80% for the Democratic party, and now 90%-plus for the Democratic party, the past few decades. Next after getting a quote from Stalin perhaps we'll be hearing about Mussolini and lions but we won't hear any of my analysis based in history and shared by others over the long haul of how Anglophile society and civilisation reject Mussolinis inherently and in the absolute.

What does occur is that US rightwhingers like to call moderate, center-right Republicans RINO (Republican In Name Only) while black Americans like to call the tiny minority of black Republicans OREO, i.e., the cookie that is black on the outside and white on the inside. One can suppose each his point, the latter in particular.

It is also the consistent case a number of people on the hard right who are not always far far far right readily say they like Bernie Sanders. These hardcore conservatives say little more about Sanders however than that he's better than most of those running and that he's a personable guy blah blah blurp blurp.

They instead spend their time attacking HR Clinton and supporters of Clinton. These firmly core conservative talkers hardly ever discuss or criticise Trump....or Cruz....and they are dismissive of Rubio and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio. The hard conservative right keep hitting on Hillary Clinton and her supporters while giving Sanders and Trump a basically free ride. That means you....among several other regular but obtuse talkers here. Youse guyz are more than obvious in this tact.

You moreover keep missing my analysis to say I'm a weatherman. Perhaps you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. The wind from over there does blow and it blows hard however. So youse guyz on the hard conservative right do need to spruce up on recognising the difference between an analysis and a rain dance. In instances of analysis one can rebut or counter argue, whereas in a rain dance one does as with Marco Rubio need water.

Analysis based in social science, political science, electoral experience and the like are not the work of Kreskin the Magnificent nor does my analysis come from the inside of a spirit house. It doesn't sweep in off the Texas Panhandle either. It is objective analysis in contrast to "X is going to win blah blah blah because the other side is wrong, and they are evil, wicked socialists/progressives/liberals from hell."

My analysis cites the precedent of R Sen Barry Goldwater in 1964 in respect of Donald Trump, and I increasingly cite the precedent of R Sen Joe McCarthy concerning Sen Ted Cruz and Trump himself. The Bigmouth Three. Historical and other analysis of each individually and the three together are both relevant and material, objectively speaking.

Do try to keep these things in mind next time you head out to the spirit house to meet up with the philosophical brethren of the hard conservative right.

Wow! Why use one word when you can use 50. Weatherman? I said blowhard

[Linzz]

Indeed, it is difficult for the hardcore conservative right to criticise Trump (Cruz also) while simultaneously stepping forward gently to say something kind about Sanders, then jumping out at Clinton while tossing the net over Clinton's supporters.

Quite the obvious contradiction or so it could seem.

The tact and approach of the hard conservative right in this campaign are indeed unmistakable.

In your paranoia you imagine conspiracy and ulterior motives. In my case rightfully or wrongfully I find Sanders and Trump suitable candidates simply because they are not visibly bought off by corporate interests. So you missed the point entirely.

Even Cruz's wife works for Goldman Sachs. (there's a criticism) .On this score Hillary is beyond the pale. That was the reason alone I've criticized them. Nothing to do with left or right and if the left won't criticize Hillary on that score and I do then automatically in your eyes I'm from the extreme right. Nuts. All it does is reveal your extreme bias through speaking nonsense and riddles in verbose language. You say I target the left so that reveals my position. No I target 'holier than thou' arrogance. Somehow the left like to display their 'superior' learning and will tell everyone about it. It's a trait.

Similarly, it was because of corruption and corporate welfare and an anti democratic movement in the GOP I quoted Stalin because taking away choices and presuming to know what's the best for the great unwashed, your vote actually means less and less. If you value your vote as much as you say then why are you not concerned? But you can't see that because you're sold out on Hillary come what may.

It may be helpful for you to know that if you meet people who incessantly enjoy lambasting others with whom they do not agree, with tags and labels because they get off on it everyday, then it's no more than a daily w@nk. Do you know anyone who does that?

[thaibeachlovers]

Like trying to deport 10 million Latinos, ripping them out of their homes and families, and start a race war? Can't wait!

Mexican Ex-Presidente Fox is right in saying he's an American Hitler. Help us stop this madness!

Are you referring to the over "10 million illegal immigrants" from Mexico and Central America that the current administration has allowed to stay in the US. If there is a race war it will be because Obama has fanned the flames with his stance on black lives matter.

Not sure if it's unworkable but I am more concerned with the drug cartels and the porous border infecting the youth of America than looking politically correct. I would not be against Mexican immigrants being processed properly through access points in the wall if there is one built. You can tell me if you think that is unreasonable.

It is not possible to block illegal border crossing, just make it more difficult. With money everything is possible, and that apply to drug dealers and terrorist groups. Corruption is also big problem in the US. Money talks.

Most of "trespassers" are farming workers without job and living in misery in South America, and those people are VERY necessary to the US Economy. California is the richest state in America, and the # 8 World Economy, and it population is 50% Hispanic. No other people is willing to work on the fields of America for minimum wages, when the US unemployment and welfare government benefits brings more than a minimum wage job.

The same is already happening in Europe and that was the main reason by Germany accepted Syrian refugees.... Looking for low income laborers. The only and big difference is that Mexicans are hard working people, without political and religious issues.

One of the reasons why factories are leaving the US to use cheap labor, is exactly because its cannot find enough cheap labor in the US. Trump wants those factories back, at the same time he wants to deport the cheap laborers. He may get some robotic equipped factories, but not the ones using human hands. Immigration strict control it is important, but to deport millions of necessary workers just because are not properly documented do not make any sense. By the way, most Trump's proposals doesn't make any sense, and he is not talking about the billionaires's control and monopoly of the economy because he is part of the clan. He is using pure Demagogy targeting the worst of the US sentiments that, unfortunately, is a common "virtue" in more than 50% of the American population. Trump may win the Presidency, with a nasty fight, not only with the Democrats, also with his own party. A shame.

The problem with the Trump haters is that they seize on only part of what he says and use it to try and convince people that he is a bad/ stupid/ whatever man with their misinformation. Yes he wants to stop ILLEGAL immigration, but he would set up a LEGAL method of allowing Mexican workers into the States. Got it?

If the US can't stop ILLEGAL border crossings, then the US taxpayer is being taken for a ride by the government with its huge homeland security tax take. If the US can't stop some Mexicans crossing the border, then they can't stop terrorists either. OTY.

[thaibeachlovers]

Fine but don't let this con artist be president.

It is amazing to me how many ( including Obama ) are now implying that "democracy" should be abandoned because the person likely to win isn't approved by them.

Tough.

It's also evident that many consider the people that support the candidate they don't want to be more than stupid, to the point of being stark raving insane.

There are several posters on TV that might do well looking to buy property in that place on Nova Scotia that is offering a "refuge" when Trump wins.

[thaibeachlovers]

If I was an Israeli I would be very reassured by that given his track record with investors in the Trump Ocean Resort Baja and those who enrolled in his "University". Not for nothing does Trump employ an army of lawyers.

I maintain that if someone gave $35k to Trump University and was wholly dissatisfied with their experience they will have gotten at least $35k in business education. I'll be forever grateful that in my first foray into financial markets that I lost money. It gave me an education it might have otherwise taken me years to learn.

I too learned my lessons the hard way in business when I was young. It doesn't forgive the scammer Trump's various business misadventures, but it does illustrate a strong point, albeit unintentionally: strong, successful business people take risks, have the courage to face failure, cause chaotic trans-formative change, and as a result usually end up building things of value for their families and for their communities. I've done business with many world-class shysters (you don't always get to choose your partners), and Trump is just another in a long line of swindlers who managed to win more than lose (and had a nice tidy sum of start-up cash). To me, this guy is completely transparent.

But, to others (particularly his uneducated base), Trump's attractiveness is that he is unlike the other slick, low-value producing, blood-sucking politicians. He has courage, bravado, and talks a big talk of change that would align with their interests.

Trump is truly a chump and the foreign embassies in Washington are ringing the phones off the wall in the White House with worry.

Trump's attractiveness is that he is unlike the other slick, low-value producing, blood-sucking politicians.

Exactly. If the US political system didn't scare off anyone with integrity Trump wouldn't have had a look in. The US will get the politicians they deserve for allowing the atrocity that is the US electoral system.

the foreign embassies in Washington are ringing the phones off the wall in the White House with worry.

OMG, just what do they ( you ) think the white house can do about it????????????

Obama has already suggested unconstitutional methods of stopping Trump, and he should stay out of it. At most, he could endorse HRC, but criticising Trump is overstepping his bounds. When the Donald wins, I hope he doesn't invite Obama to his inauguration, or at least ignores him, very publicly.

[KarenBravo]

It's going to be so good to see your reaction when Trump goes down in flames. Talking about the size of his penis (555) lit the touch-paper.

[thaibeachlovers]

It's going to be so good to see your reaction when Trump goes down in flames. Talking about the size of his penis (555) lit the touch-paper.

None at all. I never expected him to get this far and I fully expect the back room clique of both the Dems and GOP to unite to remove the threat that he poses to them, no matter how dirty they have to be. Those people are the real threat to us, but they have managed to convince many that Trump is the threat.

So, my prediction is that Trump and Sanders will be shafted and HRC will get in- business as usual for the 1%.

The thing that saddens me is that the sheeple are happy to be ruled by the 1% through proxies like Obama and HRC.

BTW, size does matter, despite the lies women tell about it. If anything it will make him even more popular. It's not even as though he brought the subject up. You can blame Rubio for that.

[keemapoot]

The really amazing and pathetic thing is, not more than two years ago, Trump, as a caricature, and as himself, was usually the subject of comedy and underlying ridicule by smart late night comedians like David Letterman. If it wasn't a joke about the squirrel on his head, it was a joke about his irrational assertions about Obama's birthplace or his stupid reality shows or terminal braggadocio.

I imagine guys like Letterman, retired now, must just be sitting in their armchairs just muttering and staring at the TV in disbelief now.

[thaibeachlovers]

The really amazing and pathetic thing is, not more than two years ago, Trump, as a caricature, and as himself, was usually the subject of comedy and underlying ridicule by smart late night comedians like David Letterman. If it wasn't a joke about the squirrel on his head, it was a joke about his irrational assertions about Obama's birthplace or his stupid reality shows or terminal braggadocio.

I imagine guys like Letterman, retired now, must just be sitting in their armchairs just muttering and staring at the TV in disbelief now.

I hope so. IMO Letterman's show, and all the other similar PC deleted shows were/ are rubbish and boring.

[Mosha]

When money rather than brains dictate who gets to run for president. This is what you get, at least one of the others thinks the Earth is few thousand years old.

[keemapoot]

The really amazing and pathetic thing is, not more than two years ago, Trump, as a caricature, and as himself, was usually the subject of comedy and underlying ridicule by smart late night comedians like David Letterman. If it wasn't a joke about the squirrel on his head, it was a joke about his irrational assertions about Obama's birthplace or his stupid reality shows or terminal braggadocio.

I imagine guys like Letterman, retired now, must just be sitting in their armchairs just muttering and staring at the TV in disbelief now.

I hope so. IMO Letterman's show, and all the other similar PC deleted shows were/ are rubbish and boring.

Well, I guess guys like you with a keen wit and sense of humor will always watch really funny guys like Greg (who?) Gutfield and Dennis (has-been) Miller. The rest of us will struggle along with boring comedians like Stephen Colbert & John Oliver, and with memories of Jon Stewart, David Letterman et.al..

[Publicus]

Indeed, it is difficult for the hardcore conservative right to criticise Trump (Cruz also) while simultaneously stepping forward gently to say something kind about Sanders, then jumping out at Clinton while tossing the net over Clinton's supporters.

Quite the obvious contradiction or so it could seem.

The tact and approach of the hard conservative right in this campaign are indeed unmistakable.

I'll bet you see the "hardcore conservative right" even in your dreams. I've got news for you. People can have a different opinion than you do, but that doesn't make them "hardcore conservative right". It may just mean that you have a very skewed view of the American electorate. Even people to the left of your opinions are considered "hardcore conservative right" by you. Maybe its time to think about retiring from this game you seem to love so much. You can't even see who the players are anymore.

Maybe its time to think about retiring from this game you seem to love so much.

Losing it I see.

At times like this the barely contained perturbed are invited to consider reading the Signature....

While you may see everyone as a "bastard trying to grind you down", I don't. Maybe you're the bastard trying to grind everyone else down. Something to think about anyway.

The conservative hard core right are once again --yet another time-- invited to offer a significant criticism of Donald Trump. There are many grounds to offer a criticism of Donald Trump.

Or to note some one thing that might concede a positive point of Hillary Clinton. Or is Mrs. Clinton and her candidacy absolutely absent or barren of any positive characteristics or traits.

Do it in the spirit of academic argument so to speak, if nothing else.

Surely either or in each respect is not too much for the open minded balanced and tolerant conservative hard right? Or is it too much for the conservative hard core right to muster in its asserted even-handed and unfastened libertarian mindset and approach??

As an example and reference point, let a positive of Donald Trump be said in this post.

Mr. Trump is a strong and dynamic personality who has a great appeal among a certain (limited) swathe of the the electorate and the body politic. Donald Trump has in his first effort in electoral politics proved he can win Republican votes throughout the country, voters, in certain kinds of voting events. In a democracy these facts win a certain acknowledgement and respect (for better and for worse).

Your turn....

[Publicus]

Indeed, it is difficult for the hardcore conservative right to criticise Trump (Cruz also) while simultaneously stepping forward gently to say something kind about Sanders, then jumping out at Clinton while tossing the net over Clinton's supporters.

Quite the obvious contradiction or so it could seem.

The tact and approach of the hard conservative right in this campaign are indeed unmistakable.

In your paranoia you imagine conspiracy and ulterior motives. In my case rightfully or wrongfully I find Sanders and Trump suitable candidates simply because they are not visibly bought off by corporate interests. So you missed the point entirely.

Even Cruz's wife works for Goldman Sachs. (there's a criticism) .On this score Hillary is beyond the pale. That was the reason alone I've criticized them. Nothing to do with left or right and if the left won't criticize Hillary on that score and I do then automatically in your eyes I'm from the extreme right. Nuts. All it does is reveal your extreme bias through speaking nonsense and riddles in verbose language. You say I target the left so that reveals my position. No I target 'holier than thou' arrogance. Somehow the left like to display their 'superior' learning and will tell everyone about it. It's a trait.

Similarly, it was because of corruption and corporate welfare and an anti democratic movement in the GOP I quoted Stalin because taking away choices and presuming to know what's the best for the great unwashed, your vote actually means less and less. If you value your vote as much as you say then why are you not concerned? But you can't see that because you're sold out on Hillary come what may.

It may be helpful for you to know that if you meet people who incessantly enjoy lambasting others with whom they do not agree, with tags and labels because they get off on it everyday, then it's no more than a daily w@nk. Do you know anyone who does that?

Well that certainly is a scolding lecture of a Trump and Republican critic. Not to mention a stridently fierce denunciation of one who is a critic of the right, the far right, the extremely fringe lunatic right. It certainly tells off this poster who supports Hillary Clinton for Potus and has a great admiration and respect of Sen Bernie Sanders and all that he stands for and represents.

The post in this focus seems to lack a certain balance, temperance, tolerance, humility, detachment or forbearance; forgiveness.

One could feel that he'd just met Donald Trump.

Have a good one.

[Linzz]

The conservative hard core right are once again --yet another time-- invited to offer a significant criticism of Donald Trump. There are many grounds to offer a criticism of Donald Trump.

Or to note some one thing that might concede a positive point of Hillary Clinton. Or is Mrs. Clinton and her candidacy absolutely absent or barren of any positive characteristics or traits.

Do it in the spirit of academic argument so to speak, if nothing else.

Surely either or in each respect is not too much for the open minded balanced and tolerant conservative hard right? Or is it too much for the conservative hard core right to muster in its asserted even-handed and unfastened libertarian mindset and approach??

As an example and reference point, let a positive of Donald Trump be said in this post.

Mr. Trump is a strong and dynamic personality who has a great appeal among a certain (limited) swathe of the the electorate and the body politic. Donald Trump has in his first effort in electoral politics proved he can win Republican votes throughout the country, voters, in certain kinds of voting events. In a democracy these facts win a certain acknowledgement and respect (for better and for worse).

Your turn....

I did in a previous post but you ignored it

Are you a political TROLL on behalf of Hillary Clinton? Because your pundit propaganda is infecting all the threads with the same long winded stuff

Here it is again:

Message to Publicus:

You have suggested that I am a Rightwingnutjob because I oppose the corruption of corporate interests puppet Hillary Clinton. Well I listened to Bernie Sanders yesterday and was impressed with his proposal to make Wall Street pay for the restoration of services to middle America and give back their bailouts. If I could vote (and I can't because I am not American) I would vote for him even though I am not a socialist. This is contrary to your self acclaimed analysis (based on your self assessed studies of social and political science) that you know where my political affinities sit. Wrong again because I am a swing voter and always have been in my own country. I am not and never have been sold out to left or right or been partisan in any way because I prefer to keep both eyes open and not close one since it makes me half blind. It is also good to not form conclusions to fit a predetermined bias like you are prone to do on a daily basis.

Does support of Sanders now make me a Leftwingnutjob like you? No because I still would support Trump for the same reasons of not being obligated to donor masters. However he is a wildcard and his hubris counts against him although I do think this marketing will wear off if he reaches office. He is still more capable of changing his position if he is wrong than Hillary can ever do because she is answerable to special interest groups so can never change or admit to being wrong. Trump is independent of that. Sanders also is free to reinstate Glass Steagall which Hillary's husband helped repeal. Financial reform is limited with Hillary, her hands are tied on that. Banks are meant to manage people's money conservatively not conduct high risk ventures with it. Has anyone been jailed for huge losses that taxpayers were forced to bail out? No.Glass Steagall would have limited that risk. Hillary speaks for Goldman Sachs and her speeches she will not release. They are currently are up for $5 billion in penalties and settlements.

Sorry I would rather trust Trump than Hillary, but for the record I prefer Sanders.

[Linzz]

Indeed, it is difficult for the hardcore conservative right to criticise Trump (Cruz also) while simultaneously stepping forward gently to say something kind about Sanders, then jumping out at Clinton while tossing the net over Clinton's supporters.

Quite the obvious contradiction or so it could seem.

The tact and approach of the hard conservative right in this campaign are indeed unmistakable.

In your paranoia you imagine conspiracy and ulterior motives. In my case rightfully or wrongfully I find Sanders and Trump suitable candidates simply because they are not visibly bought off by corporate interests. So you missed the point entirely.

Even Cruz's wife works for Goldman Sachs. (there's a criticism) .On this score Hillary is beyond the pale. That was the reason alone I've criticized them. Nothing to do with left or right and if the left won't criticize Hillary on that score and I do then automatically in your eyes I'm from the extreme right. Nuts. All it does is reveal your extreme bias through speaking nonsense and riddles in verbose language. You say I target the left so that reveals my position. No I target 'holier than thou' arrogance. Somehow the left like to display their 'superior' learning and will tell everyone about it. It's a trait.

Similarly, it was because of corruption and corporate welfare and an anti democratic movement in the GOP I quoted Stalin because taking away choices and presuming to know what's the best for the great unwashed, your vote actually means less and less. If you value your vote as much as you say then why are you not concerned? But you can't see that because you're sold out on Hillary come what may.

It may be helpful for you to know that if you meet people who incessantly enjoy lambasting others with whom they do not agree, with tags and labels because they get off on it everyday, then it's no more than a daily w@nk. Do you know anyone who does that?

Well that certainly is a scolding lecture of a Trump and Republican critic. Not to mention a stridently fierce denunciation of one who is a critic of the right, the far right, the extremely fringe lunatic right. It certainly tells off this poster who supports Hillary Clinton for Potus and has a great admiration and respect of Sen Bernie Sanders and all that he stands for and represents.

The post in this focus seems to lack a certain balance, temperance, tolerance, humility, detachment or forbearance; forgiveness.

One could feel that he'd just met Donald Trump.

Have a good one.

Wow Pub! Whenever have you posted a balanced, temperate tolerant humble detached with forbearance or forgiveness? That's why I've targeted you because you are none of those things.

However you seem to have left out name calling recently so maybe you're on the improve

Cheers.

[CMNightRider]

Thank God for Trump. The only people who are shuddering over Trump becoming the next president, are corrupt politicians and the people who want something for nothing. Once Trump gets into the White House, the gravy train will be over for the lobbyist and the greedy, corrupt, soul-less, politicians who accept their money.

[KarenBravo]

Thank God for Trump. The only people who are shuddering over Trump becoming the next president, are corrupt politicians and the people who want something for nothing. Once Trump gets into the White House, the gravy train will be over for the lobbyist and the greedy, corrupt, soul-less, politicians who accept their money.

How naive........

[keemapoot]

Trump just won Michigan and uttered the following:

Trump allows that he might, perhaps, come in second in the "presidential" category to Abraham Lincoln.

When they build the Trump Memorial & make a statue to him, how tall do you think they'll make his hair?

[KarenBravo]

What happens when delegates are won, but, the politician eventually quits the race.

Who do those delegates go to?

[thaibeachlovers]

What happens when delegates are won, but, the politician eventually quits the race.

Who do those delegates go to?

I don't know, but they should go to whoever came second.

[CMNightRider]

Thank God for Trump. The only people who are shuddering over Trump becoming the next president, are corrupt politicians and the people who want something for nothing. Once Trump gets into the White House, the gravy train will be over for the lobbyist and the greedy, corrupt, soul-less, politicians who accept their money.

How naive........

Naive??? Really??? Lets give that a little thought. A large segment of the population (naive people) voted for Obama, who had been a community organiser and had warmed a seat in the U.S. Senate. Obama had never held a real job, and was totally void of any leadership skills. Obama devastated the American economy, weakened the military, and divided the country as no one who served before him. These same people voted for him twice, and now support Hillary who wants to continue Obama's idiotic policies. So you think I'm naive because I support a successful business man, who can't be influenced by lobbyist or other vermin? How naive......

[KarenBravo]

You think Obama divided the country more than Dubya?

You think it will be the end of the lobbying industry if Trump gets in?

You think Trump will get in?

I stand by my statement.

[Ulysses G.]

You think Obama divided the country more than Dubya?

Much more so. Especially racially.

[keemapoot]

What happens when delegates are won, but, the politician eventually quits the race.

Who do those delegates go to?

I think if a candidate "suspends" his race, rather than withdraw, he will retain his delegates. That is why you see most of them announce suspension rather than withdrawal. They can then use those delegates in their "basket" of power for negotiation later which he can pledge to another candidate. (If I explained this wrong, one of our pundits will be along to correct me)

I think that is what is happening now with Florida looming, as the winner-take-all state. Jeb Bush is acting as a power broker, announcing he will meet with 3 candidates (NOT INCLUDING TRUMP) to decide who he will back, then endorse, and throw his family dynasty's weight behind that candidate to defeat Trump. Note: Bush considers Rubio a traitor after having mentored him coming up in Florida. But as we all know, politics is thicker than water or somethin like that.