The Mad World of Donald Trump

Keep_pedalling

Cruz is definitely far crazier and scary than Trump, but it now looks like it's going to be a choice between the orange windbag, who I don't think actually believes half the things he rants about and a bats**t crazy fundamentalist who does believe in all the BS he spouts.

The GOP is rather like Dr. Frankenstein, they have created a monster out of their base by pandering to the fears of rednecks and Chistian fundies, but the monster is now out of their control and no one can get nominated without the support of these loonies. Lincoln would be appalled at what has happened to his party.

SnooksNJ

cepheus wrote: »

The corrupt connections of Donald Trump. It doesn't help if you don't take donations if your the problem yourself!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35732423

This link falls short of your claim that Donald Trump will violate American's 5th Amendment right.

michaels

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

Cruz is definitely far crazier and scary than Trump, but it now looks like it's going to be a choice between the orange windbag, who I don't think actually believes half the things he rants about and a bats**t crazy fundamentalist who does believe in all the BS he spouts.

The GOP is rather like Dr. Frankenstein, they have created a monster out of their base by pandering to the fears of rednecks and Chistian fundies, but the monster is now out of their control and no one can get nominated without the support of these loonies. Lincoln would be appalled at what has happened to his party.

Would Clinton - Cruz leave more space for bloomberg?

Keep_pedalling

Bloomberg running against Clinton would give Trump or Cruz a better chance and he can't stand either of them so he won't do it.

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

Yes he does do that. Not in PMQs but Mr Corbyn does regularly raise those things in interviews.

Can you point me to some examples where he has raised these things out in interviews since becoming leader of opposition? He's given quite a few so it shouldn't be hard to come up with a decent number; the coverage I've seen is light on those subjects and invariably involves someone asking him about it.

N1AK

michaels wrote: »

Isn't cruz more scarey than trump?

Nah, Cruz is almost as toxic as Trump thus far the main difference is that Trump might be able to change his spots enough to have a chance in the election. Cruz is a true believer and the US population as a whole isn't going to buy what he's selling.

mwpt

Doing the rounds on Facebook:

Donald Trump answers the question: What is 2+2?
"I have to say a lot of people have been asking this question. No, really. A lot of people come up to me and they ask me. They say, 'What's 2+2'? And I tell them look, we know what 2+2 is. We've had almost eight years of the worst kind of math you can imagine. Oh my God, I can't believe it. Addition and subtraction of the 1s the 2s and the 3s. It's terrible. It's just terrible. Look, if you want to know what 2+2 is, do you want to know what 2+2 is? I'll tell you. First of all the number 2, by the way, I love the number 2. It's probably my favorite number, no it is my favorite number. You know what, it's probably more like the number two but with a lot of zeros behind it. A lot. If I'm being honest, I mean, if I'm being honest. I like a lot of zeros. Except for Marco Rubio, now he's a zero that I don't like. Though, I probably shouldn't say that. He's a nice guy but he's like, '10101000101,' on and on, like that. He's like a computer! You know what I mean? He's like a computer. I don't know. I mean, you know. So, we have all these numbers, and we can add them and subtract them and add them. TIMES them even. Did you know that? We can times them OR divide them, they don't tell you that, and I'll tell you, no one is better at the order of operations than me. You wouldn't believe it. So, we're gonna be the best on 2+2, believe me."

vivatifosi

michaels wrote: »

Would Clinton - Cruz leave more space for bloomberg?

It is being reported on the breaking news tickers that he has ruled himself out.

antrobus

vivatifosi wrote: »

It is being reported on the breaking news tickers that he has ruled himself out.

Oddly enough Bloomberg are reporting that Bloomberg won't run. And Bloomberg won't run because he knows Clinton will beat Sanders, and if he did run against Clinton it would only help Cruz or Trump to win.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-07/michael-bloomberg-says-he-won-t-run-for-president-in-2016

Generali

N1AK wrote: »

But does he actually do that? Take a look at what's raised in PMQs and in his interviews:

• Was his question about the 10,000 people originally promised free childcare who won't get it about Palestine, the IRA, or the Falklands?
• His question about teacher recruitment?
• His question about classroom overcrowding?

If a plasterer in Romford saw that and preferred Cameron's puerile jibes like "Acropolis Now" it isn't because he's talking about things that are relevant and important to them.

It does strike me that yourself and many others who criticise Corbyn seem to do so for spurious or imagined reasons; I'm sure I could come up with a dozen legitimate concerns about him, so I'm really not sure why people feel the need to make up ones.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/07/the-idea-that-jeremy-corbyn-laid-the-foundations-for-peace-in-northern-ireland-is-total-fantasy/

“During the 1980s… we built up regular contacts with Sinn Fein, we were condemned by our own Party Leadership for so doing… and we were proven to be right. In the end, even Margaret Thatcher recognised that there had to be some kind of political settlement in Ireland, that militarily it wasn’t going to be possible, and eventually this became the Good Friday Agreement after the 1997 election.”

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/01/18/jeremy-corbyn-s-falklands-comments-have-surrendered-the-next

However, the debate over the Falklands raised by Corbyn yesterday, is of a completely different order.

Whereas the debate over Trident is one based on hypothetical threats, the debate over the Falklands is not. The Argentinians have repeatedly threatened to capture the islands and there are military experts who believe the UK would be unable to defend them if they did. For the British people living on the islands, what leading UK politicians say about them really matters.

The debate also matters to millions of people living on mainland Britain. Asked yesterday about whether The UK should hold onto the islands, Corbyn told Marr that there "has to be a discussion about how we can bring about some reasonable accommodation with Argentina." Asked whether the Falklands Islanders would have a veto over the outcome of these discussions, Corbyn confirmed that they would not.

He just walks into this stuff. I don't know if he just opens his mouth without thinking and lets the words tumble out or if he is just politically naive but he's doing something wrong, clearly.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

The seven polls in February 2016 give the Tories leads of between 7 and 14%.