rickyp wrote:ray

Fast forward 3 weeks ... Trump and Clinton lock up their respective nominations ... it seems to me that the only way that Trump wins is if Clinton is indicted. Oy vey

.

In August Trump will be called to testify in one of 3 civil suits in which he is accused of defrauding thousands of people who paid to get courses from Trump University.

So, what are you saying? Trump's lawsuit is the equivalent of an indictment?

Do you have a point?

fate

So, what are you saying?

here's what i'm saying...

In August Trump will be called to testify in one of 3 civil suits in which he is accused of defrauding thousands of people who paid to get courses from Trump University

The problem with the Republican Party is that they didn't start to
attack Trump till just now...
Now; they are starting to provide evidence of his true nature. Not such a straight shooting tell it like it is person.
That its coming out from Republican and conservative voices now is important. Because when it is amplified by Democrats in the General election, and presumably by Hillary, with whatever else they've found on the guy .... it will be credible. (And you've got to think the Dems have been digging on him for many many months... )
Here's a compilation by the National Review. I think they can be considered conservative. (His army deferment is really interesting. Its in the story on Yuge Lies)

http://www.nationalreview.com/author/ian-tuttle

And the thing that might stop Hillary is the incredibly remote possibility of an indictment over her emails?
Even if that happened whoever replaces her will have a cake walk. (Would that be her presumed VP choice? Julian Castro?)
Maybe the Republicans want to rethink not considering Obama's nominees for Supreme Court now?

They are not "equivalent", but it would be a little damaging if Trump loses a case based on him basically overselling.

But the kind of idiot that is buying the Trump message probably will not care if there is further evidence that he is a snake oil salesman, or should I say would not want to consider the idea that they have also been had.

But among floating voters it would be more of a factor.

Kind of reminds me of a diplomacy game. Trump was the front- runner and no one wanted to really take him on directly because they were more worried about getting to the mid- game and did not want to take the risk of stopping the leader. But Trump has become a juggernaut...

I thought Rubio's attacks were effective for a couple of reasons. First, he noted that Trump had inherited 200 million dollars. In our culture billionaires are the penultimate alpha males. They are considered smart and tough enough to be able to take control of enormous resources. Trump has been impervious to attack because ultimately he could say (not even say, it's just understood ) that he has been far more successful than some politician who has never really done anything. But becoming a billionaire with a 200 million dollar head start...that's not so impressive. Rubio also turned Trump's tendency to mock his opponents against him by mocking him for using illegal labor and for defrauding students who went to Trump University.

But it's likely too late.

danivon wrote:They are not "equivalent", but it would be a little damaging if Trump loses a case based on him basically overselling.

But the kind of idiot that is buying the Trump message probably will not care if there is further evidence that he is a snake oil salesman, or should I say would not want to consider the idea that they have also been had.

But among floating voters it would be more of a factor.

True, but I think Trump is going to find ways to attack Hillary that you haven't imagined yet. He's an ugly man.

I won't be voting for him, presuming he's the nominee. And, I'm not the only Republican who feels that way. I wouldn't be shocked to see a conservative 3rd Party candidate get 10-15% of the vote. Trump will have to win in the middle. That will mean depressing turnout and raising Hillary's negatives. In other words, a tsunami of mud is coming her way.

On the other hand, if Hillary is indicted or if there is a referral, she's toast. And, they won't be able to tag in Castro (rickyp's "next up" socialist). It will be Biden. Castro has zero name recognition.

freeman3 wrote:Kind of reminds me of a diplomacy game. Trump was the front- runner and no one wanted to really take him on directly because they were more worried about getting to the mid- game and did not want to take the risk of stopping the leader. But Trump has become a juggernaut...

I thought Rubio's attacks were effective for a couple of reasons. First, he noted that Trump had inherited 200 million dollars. In our culture billionaires are the penultimate alpha males. They are considered smart and tough enough to be able to take control of enormous resources. Trump has been impervious to attack because ultimately he could say (not even say, it's just understood ) that he has been far more successful than some politician who has never really done anything. But becoming a billionaire with a 200 million dollar head start...that's not so impressive. Rubio also turned Trump's tendency to mock his opponents against him by mocking him for using illegal labor and for defrauding students who went to Trump University.

But it's likely too late.

Probably. I just saw 20-25 min of Trump in Arkansas. It makes me sick to my stomach that he will be on the ballot, which means he has a chance to win. Everything he is doing is worthy of a dictator-in-training. He's promising to change speech laws to enable lawsuits against newspapers and politicians. How will that help anyone who isn't in power?

I'm not saying he is "Hitler." I am saying if a dictatorship is possible in the US, it would be done as he is doing it. Btw, he is also using an atmosphere created by a leader perceived as weak and ineffective by a large section of the populace. There is economic unrest. There is social unrest.

He is the uber-mensch offering his "services" to "help" a country "in need."

Nauseating.

I saw a photo of Hillary smiling and thought that reminds me of someone...yes, Chancellor Palpatine. I googled it and of course I get a bunch of hits. Well, that can't be good...

This was it. https://mobile.twitter.com/NBCNews/stat ... 01/photo/1

freeman3 wrote:I saw a photo of Hillary smiling and thought that reminds me of someone...yes, Chancellor Papaltine. I googled it and of course I get a bunch of hits. Well, that can't be good...

I had to Google that ... I thought it might be some French or German guy before/during the 3rd Reich ... it's Palpatine, BTW.

Corrected.

Ray Jay wrote:

freeman3 wrote:I saw a photo of Hillary smiling and thought that reminds me of someone...yes, Chancellor Papaltine. I googled it and of course I get a bunch of hits. Well, that can't be good...

I had to Google that ... I thought it might be some French or German guy before/during the 3rd Reich ... it's Palpatine, BTW.

Cruz v. Clinton = 2 people who don't smile naturally and are off-putting.

Clinton v. Trump = 2 liberals from New York who love to crush their opponents.

It's hard to pick a winner in the "who would you most like to have a beer with?" contest.

freeman3 wrote:I saw a photo of Hillary smiling and thought that reminds me of someone...yes, Chancellor Palpatine. I googled it and of course I get a bunch of hits. Well, that can't be good...

Oh man, I was googling and found this:

http://freebeacon.com/blog/hillary-clinton-less-popular-than-darth-vader/

All real people were less popular than Darth Vader. Not Jar Jar Binks, though. People really hate that guy.

geojanes wrote:

freeman3 wrote:I saw a photo of Hillary smiling and thought that reminds me of someone...yes, Chancellor Palpatine. I googled it and of course I get a bunch of hits. Well, that can't be good...

Oh man, I was googling and found this:

http://freebeacon.com/blog/hillary-clinton-less-popular-than-darth-vader/

All real people were less popular than Darth Vader. Not Jar Jar Binks, though. People really hate that guy.

I suggested the surest way of setting the all-time record for ticket sales was to make a movie called "The Slow, Painful Death of Jar-Jar Binks."

It's hard to pick a winner in the "who would you most like to have a beer with?" contest.

Trump every time. He's paying for the round though.

Sassenach wrote:

It's hard to pick a winner in the "who would you most like to have a beer with?" contest.

Trump every time. He's paying for the round though.

He's pretty insufferable--even if he's paying.