DescentBB

So Trumps gives the finger to Fox News, sets up his own event and has more press coverage than Fox has coverage of debate. In the process the Trump event raises 6 million for veteran groups. I wonder how much Fox lost in advertising revenue from not having Trump there. The astounding part is how quickly Trump got all this organized. Still think he won't be able to handle the Democratic machine as easily as he handled Fox News?

Oh I am going to market security blankets to all you libs who will feel the need to wrap up in one the closer to next Nov. we come.

no he will not win in November, or even come close. People saw the events of this week as more thin-skinned, self-centered nonsense unworthy of anyone purporting to lead our nation. He cobbled together an event with a group(Wounded Warrior Project) that has been rejected by a lot of us(used to give to them and work with them myself until about 4 years back, when my group switched to Project Healing Waters) as corrupt. Over 50% of income for WWP is used by the executive staff for luxuries, less than 20% of monies given make it to vets. Typical Donald fans. Moreover, he demanded 5 million dollars from Fox to do the debate after the childish spat.
How this is supposed to show leadership to anyone with a brain eludes me. How this is supposed to translate into winning anything past the clusterfuck that is the GOP primary process eludes me.

Of course you have proof of your allegations and this is just not more of your vaporous statements?

about WWP? Yup, it is public record. Look it up.....our Sportsman's Club did so.

here you go, from a left-wing source, of course.....

http://www.military-money-matters.com/w ... z3ydtY3DwD

I was amused by the commentor about the fact that a swastika had been spray painted on Trumps star in Hollywood Walk of Fame: "the sad part is that we'll never probably know whether this was painted by a Trump detractor or supporter"

Trending: #PeakTrump

Cruz and Rubio both with very strong showings.

Lothar wrote:Trending: #PeakTrump

Cruz and Rubio both with very strong showings.

Good. With Trump slapped down, hopefully this'll knock the wind out of his reality show and let the real republicans run for the highest office.

scary, but I agree with NS.....for different reasons of course.

oh, and to the original topic. That stunt around the last Iowa debate likely cost Trump the win last night. It will be interesting to see how the rest of the primary goes, starting with New Hampshire, view him now that he has been dinged. I'm guessing that Rubio is sitting around today, waiting for the big donor money to start flowing to him. Damn, he gave one long-winded, short on facts or plans harangue last night. Nephew and I watch him go on and kept saying, 'he finished THIRD'.

Sorry guys, even in defeat Trump wins with this statement about the results:

And, we finished second, and I want to tell you something, I’m just honored, I’m really honored.”

Just goes to show what a classy guy he really is. Now take Crazy Bernies statement of wanting a recount and you can see the difference between the two. Cruz won because he came across as evangelical. I don't think his "Glory to God" statement will pull many votes in NH.

I'll give the man props for brevity and a bit of class last night.....however, he spent more time dwelling on his pretty little family group and far too little on the field staff. Maybe that was why he performed as poorly as he did. New Hampshire might be real interesting.

Actually it will be SC with it's larger minorities population is where we will see a better image of how the primaries are shaping up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/opini ... collection

(Slick, for someone who is an insider in politics, you sure seem to be struggling to grasp the significance of Rubio's showing.)

no, I think I grasp it pretty well, but it is still going to be difficult for the GOP. Here's why: his positon on immigration is absolutely HATED by about half of the GOP voters, and I don't think they are getting on board, unless he radically backpedals, which will kill him in the General. I know what he was really doing last night, which was playing up the expectaton angle, and he did vastly exceed expectations in Iowa. I still don't find him to be anywhere near as 'electable' as Kasich, who would be a far better point of comparison for the NY Times to use relative to prior GOP choices. Rubio might get his moment, but he has to learn to stay consistent and mainly has to start to grasp that you win large scale elections on promotion of POSITIVES. He's going to get rid of those exec orders, but to do what to address the situations involved. He's going to 'end Obamacare immediately'....and, replace it with what? Rubio's problem is akin to the overall problem with the GOP. There is no overriding, agreed-upon game plan with them. Maybe the Times feels he can unify that party, but I sure don't see it. Maybe he and Ryan can hammer out a platform of sorts, but will the rank and file go along? Not too sure, here.
Woody makes a fair point about SC and others. It isn't just the numbers of minority voters, though, it is the priorities of the electorate down there. Let's face it, the GOP primary down in SC draws about 16 or 17 minorities, total. It will be a telling test of Hillary v Bernie though. Also, it will go a long way towards addressing my questions and concerns about the GOP above.

So Rubio is making promises he can’t keep, well I guess if either he or Uncle Bernie gets elected, we will see 4 years of lame duck.

Hope everyone is hungry…

Spidey wrote:So Rubio is making promises he can’t keep, well I guess if either he or Uncle Bernie gets elected, we will see 4 years of lame duck.

why? I mean people suggested as much about Obama, and he won rather easily the 2nd time around.

Ok...8 years of lame duck...

Yea, I think everyone bought into the notion it was really those evil Republicans that made Obama break promises...and if they just give him a little more time..............

In other news, the typical democrat party voter showed up for Hillary...

callmeslick wrote:Here's why: his positon on immigration is absolutely HATED by about half of the GOP voters, and I don't think they are getting on board, unless he radically backpedals, which will kill him in the General.

This is the same point I made to a friend last night. I think Cruz has a better chance, following the traditional campaign strategy: start out deep in your base then gradually move to the center. Even though a lot of Republicans hate Cruz he has definitely shown an ability to move the government (remember those shutdowns?), though that's rather tyrannical. One of the reasons I picked Bush/Rubio early on is because I see them as moderate — but that doesn't get your base pumped up (not that anyone is getting the GOP pumped, but that is beside the point).

It's still really early. Remember when Santorum won Iowa? Heh. The other day I even found myself thinking "Hmm, maybe Cruz does seem 'presidential'..." I would still rather Rubio get the nod, but my gut says Cruz.

Let's just hope none of them channel Nixon's spirit.

Ferno wrote:Let's just hope none of them channel Nixon's spirit.

I hear Hillary is trying to.

hilarious stuff, Ferno!


by the way, tangental, but equally hilarious: Michelle Bachman is now apparently claiming that at the end of his term, Obama is going to 'take over the UN'(whatever THAT means) and then, show himself to be the Anti-Christ. Film at 11.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/michele ... s.facebook

Yeah slick, kinda like the nut jobs on the left saying Trump will be the next Hitler...aka the 90 year old jewish liberals.

"Ted Cruz didn't win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!" - Donald Trump, via twitter and facebook (his verified accounts).

Dude is melting down. Good! Let's get this clown out of the race.

woodchip wrote:Yeah slick, kinda like the nut jobs on the left saying Trump will be the next Hitler...aka the 90 year old jewish liberals.

oh, completely the same as anticipating a magical event following a process which isn't clear at all. Saying he has similarities to early Hitler rallies by people WHO WERE THERE isn't even close to Bachmann's lunacy. Strap on those ideological blinders a bit looser, they're getting to your brain.

Lothar wrote:"Ted Cruz didn't win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!" - Donald Trump, via twitter and facebook (his verified accounts).

Dude is melting down. Good! Let's get this clown out of the race.

there is verifiable evidence that Cruz distributed flyers that were in violation of state election law, suggesting the non-voters would be publicly identified, and evidence that his callers were reaching out to Carson voters to tell them that Carson had dropped out. So, yes, he did sort of 'steal' the vote, in a political dirty tricks sense. To the Donald: welcome to US electoral politics.

it comes across as excuse-making for Trump, though. It's not like Cruz performed unexpectedly well at Carson's expense. Cruz, Rubio, Carson, and Ron Paul all outperformed the last polls, while Trump and the low-single-digit crowd all underperformed. The Cruz shenanigans might account for a tiny bit of that, but a lot of it is Trump legitimately losing.

Unfortunately Lothar, we'll never know how much.

callmeslick wrote: ]

there is verifiable evidence that Cruz distributed flyers that were in violation of state election law, suggesting the non-voters would be publicly identified, and evidence that his callers were reaching out to Carson voters to tell them that Carson had dropped out. So, yes, he did sort of 'steal' the vote, in a political dirty tricks sense. To the Donald: welcome to US electoral politics.

Thanks for being honest on this one.

I'm HONEST on EVERYTHING. Someday, you'll grasp that.

OMG...I don't even think that is humanly possible.

callmeslick wrote:I'm HONEST on EVERYTHING. Someday, you'll grasp that.

No, I caught you a number of time telling untruths or at the very least distorting reality. The latest was the one about low incidences of voter fraud. Citing only discovered cases of fraud as proof ignores the fact that most cases are never discover as evidence by the NYC DOI report.

the NY DOJ report showed NO EVIDENCE of any election EVER being CLOSE to affected. Swing away.
Spidey, you might be right, as a general observation. I'm just on my best behavior here.

Lothar wrote:"Ted Cruz didn't win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!" - Donald Trump, via twitter and facebook (his verified accounts).

Dude is melting down. Good! Let's get this clown out of the race.

Well, Trump did say he would come to Iowa and buy a farm in his concession speach. Hopefully, he already bought the farm!

callmeslick wrote:the NY DOJ report showed NO EVIDENCE of any election EVER being CLOSE to affected. Swing away.
Spidey, you might be right, as a general observation. I'm just on my best behavior here.

It showed that you would never know if it did. Stop trying to be devious.

woodchip wrote:I hear Hillary is trying to.

you hear? Who from?

And do you know what I mean by "Nixon's Spirit"?

-----------------

Lothar wrote:"Ted Cruz didn't win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!" - Donald Trump, via twitter and facebook (his verified accounts).

Dude is melting down. Good! Let's get this clown out of the race.

He must have got that from 8chan! LOL!

woody seems to 'hear' a lot of stuff. I envision him standing near an open window, listening so very carefully.

And slick likes to blame the messenger when he is proven wrong.