Trump: Dawn of the 3rd Party

But Ms Kelly, from Aberdeen, questioned the value of Mr Trump's investments in Scotland and the number of "permanent, desirable jobs" they had created.

"The irony of a man who wants to ban Muslims from entering the US throwing a temper tantrum over being similarly banned himself is apparent to everyone except the tycoon himself."


The irony is that banning mean people is now holier than temporarily banning Muslims--from legally entering the US of A. Hissy fits and temper tantrums are all the rave. Gonna try to make displacement hot with the cool kids. Be right back, gonna kick my dog because someone cut me off while I drove east on I-90 today. SMH.

For the record, I still think a ban by select country is preferred.

 

The first Rasmussen Reports Trump Change national telephone survey of the new year finds that 74% of Likely Republican Voters think the billionaire businessman is likely to be their nominee in 2016, with 31% who say it is Very Likely.

Because of the Christmas and New Year’s holidays, this is our first Trump Change survey since mid-December. At that time, 66% of GOP voters said Trump is likely to win the nomination, with 27% who said it is Very Likely.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of Republicans are looking forward to this year’s presidential contest. Among Democrats, 50% are looking forward to the race, but nearly as many (44%) have had enough of it already.

Among voters who Strongly Approve of the job President Obama is doing, just 37% think Trump is likely to win the Republican nomination. Among those who Strongly Disapprove of the president’s job performance, 79% see Trump as the likely nominee.

The survey of 1,000 Likely U.S. Voters was conducted on January 6-7, 2016 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.


http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/trump_change

 

The petition to ban trump is kinda silly, but i guess the point is that it is less silly (or should that be less serious?) than his call to ban people by religion.

Banning by religion -- this isn't just outdated, this is medieval thinking. Next he will call to expel the Jews, or forcibly convert the pope-ists.

 

Either way, it looks like Hilary would beat Trump or any other Republican candidate.

Hilary 2016 seems very very likely to me.

 

For prison, president, or both?

 

For showing how out of tough the Republican Party is in this day and age with the common folk, by actually winning as Hilary Clinton.

 

The GOP has been out of touch with regular citizens for many years. Thus the rise of Trump.

Hillary might very well be the next POTUS, but she must overcome at least 3 significant hurdles.

 

Reportedly early polls show Trump beating Hilary.

*shrug*

Don't have them on hand at the moment though so I could be wrong.


In any event, she might have too much baggage between her husband, Benghazi, and other such stuff (even if not all of those are "fair"). Granted, if her opponent ends up being Jeb Bush or something that might "equalize" or nullify her disadvantage. There will probably be people that vote for her based on her being woman (because sexism is fine if it's pro-female I guess). And there might be rigging. Note I consider that a possibility regardless of who runs.

I dunno, it just doesn't feel particularly likely that Hilary would become President at this specific point. That could though easily change in the future during the actual Presidential Campaigns.

 

Trump appeals to Reps, but not at the generic Dems.

Part of the reason Obama won is because women/youngsters/minorities/gay people etc voted for him instead of Romney. The % those people make up isn't shrinking, quite the contrary. And I don't see Trump appealing to them all that much, even if Hilary doesn't, the GOP inherently has that bad feel about them with that part of the population because of their policies. Reputation and whatnot.

I'm curious, what are those 3 hurdles?

 

Benghazi should work in her favor by now, after the 50 commissions they had her on and failed to lay anything on her.

It is true that she's got a past that might not work in her favor, but I still feel that as a whole, democrats appeal to a lot of outsider groups (that Obama was able to mobilize to vote), not sure if it will be the case this time, but it doesn't seem unlikely.

Obviously it's still a year off and a lot can happen. When do you guys vote for your fav dem/republican?

 

A big UHOH for Hillary.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...ers-aide-to-strip-classified-marking-n2101680

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/...-transmit-classified-e-mail-without-markings/

Snippet

"Has the State Department released a smoking gun in the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal? In a thread from June 2011, Hillary exchanges e-mails with Jake Sullivan, then her deputy chief of staff and now her campaign foreign-policy adviser, in which she impatiently waits for a set of talking points. When Sullivan tells her that the source is having trouble with the secure fax, Hillary then orders Sullivan to have the data stripped of its markings and sent through a non-secure channel."

My friends that handle classified say they would be completely ****ed for typing what she typed “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” Things will get very interesting for her now.

Whats even funnier is people will still believe she did nothing wrong lol "indentifying heading" is term for the place the classification must go, ALL classified info must contain this header. If you order it stripped there is no question at all you are giving a direct order that violates how the information is to be handled and breaks the law. Look it up if you want because I wont bother explaining, we have people here who think guns cant be used defensively and no way am I going to try and explain this to them lol and

Also the information she was speaking of was classified and redacted in her other emails, going to be fun watching the spin in the news!

Part of how classified info must be handled below, with part she ordered broken highlighted.

"Overall Classification Markings
The overall (i.e., highest) classification of a document is marked at the top and bottom of the outside cover (if there is one), the title page (if there is one), the first page, and the outside of the back cover (if there is one) or back side of the last page.

Each interior page containing classified information is marked top and bottom with the overall (i.e., highest) classification of the page. Each unclassified interior page is marked 'Unclassified" at the top and bottom. Interior pages that are For Official Use Only need to be marked only at the bottom. Blank pages require no markings.

Attachments and annexes may become separated from the basic document. They should be marked as if they were separate documents.

Additionally, every classified document must show, on the face of the document, the agency and office that created it and date of creation. This information must be clear enough to allow someone receiving the document to contact the preparing office if questions or problems about classification arise.

U.S. documents that contain foreign government information shall be marked on the front, "THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS FOREIGN GOVERNMENT (indicate level) INFORMATION."

Computer files must be marked with appropriate headers and footers to ensure that anything that is transmitted or printed will have the applicable classification and associated markings.

All removable storage media and devices such as diskettes, CD-ROMs, cassettes, magnet tape reels, etc. must have an outer label with the appropriate markings.

Each slide must be marked on the slide itself or slide cover, as well as on the image that is projected."

Side note, some will for sure see no problem with this lol but all you have to do is ask someone who handles classified about it.

 

1. Classified docs, more than 1200 apparently, on her personal server.

2. Win the Dem nomination.

3. Win the general election.

She could overcome charges, and still be too tarnished in the minds of most Dems. Or be at point 3 and have too many independents vote for Crazy Train, or just not vote at all. Very interesting times for sure.

Edit:

I live in WA, so things tend to be wrapped up before we vote. State is blue > 30 yrs running.

 

The local elections are what I pay attention to. Living in Minnesota my vote doesn't really matter for President, since the electoral college votes will all go for the democrat candidate anyway.

 

To be fair, there's (probably) not someone trying to eat your food at the same time you are.

 

Now we know why Sok has not fattened up, like the rest of us.

 

I agree with your first hurdle. Having 1200 classified docs on a non-secure server and the general cavalier attitude towards classified information should disqualify her on that basis.

I would list as number 2 the simple fact she is not a likable person like her husband. Bill is a likable person. Hillary is not.

I would list as number 3 her general incompetence as Sec of State particularly in that she did not take appropriate actions to give reasonable chance the ambassador in Libya would be protected. She took no enhanced precautions even after other countries had pulled their key people out of Benghazi. She basically failed with her 2 am call.

 

Some democrats are even looking to trump now, includes interesting effect of his first ad also.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...ald-trump-is-a-real-threat-to-hillary-Clinton

 

Just to put this in some perspective. Nixon was impeached for less.

 

Times they are a changing.