This is a judge to replace a scalia not another liberal judge. He would change the balance of the court on key issues like the 2nd amendment.
Sorry but there is no "scalia" position on the Supreme Court. There is not, nor has there ever been, any sort of rule or understanding about it being balanced on a conservative/liberal axis, or that a liberal justice should be replaced by another liberal and vice versa. Thurgood Marshall's replacement was Clarence Thomas for heaven's sake.
Understatement of the year. His entire plan seems to be "I will get great deals. People love me. I'm a winner. I want America to be great again". Repeat ad naseum and you've basically covered all of Trump's policy positions.
If they are such violent thugs why are they not trying to shutdown other candidates rallies? Maybe they just showed up and got pissed off when they can't hear someone speak or get smacked in the head with a sign. If you are going disrupt my party I am going to throw you out. You have one guy in a crowd of 11,000 punching someone talking garbage in the face vs. an entire organized protest designed to cause a riot and people charging stages. Don't you dare act like the Trump supports are the ones in the wrong.
So the only place this crap is happening is at Trump rallies. Not at Cruz rallies or Kasich rallies or Clinton rallies or Sanders rallies. Only Trump. And your take-away from that is that it must mean that Trump and his supporters are the victims and are doing nothing to contribute to any of this? That is some loopy logic.
edit: just want to add so my opinion is clear, anyone who actually attacks someone is of course in the wrong and to blame for their own actions.
Sorry, I should have said "A decent paycheck". Go look it up yourself, I'm not uninformed. It's one of the many reasons I don't like him, having come from nothing and made a decent living for myself at 26 while not running around advocating communist agenda's to help myself off the backs of those who work hard.
You know who else came from nothing? Bernie. Then he went on to become the mayor of his city, got elected to the US Senate running as an Independent and became one of the most well respected US Senators with the highest approval rating in the entire country. It's sad that you somehow think that because you got a decent job in your mid-twenties that you can look down your nose at this man.
I didn't 'manage' anything. I worked my ass off for it.
Are you implying that being a public servant isn't work? I certainly never implied that you didn't work for what you've achieved. The fact that he didn't get rich off his political career doing favors for the wealthy, and that the approval of his constituents is through the roof, should tell you how hard he works for the people he represents and the kind of human being he is.
Sorry, I should have said "A decent paycheck". Go look it up yourself, I'm not uninformed. It's one of the many reasons I don't like him, having come from nothing and made a decent living for myself at 26 while not running around advocating communist agenda's to help myself off the backs of those who work hard.
You know who else came from nothing? Bernie. Then he went on to become the mayor of his city, got elected to the US Senate running as an Independent and became one of the most well respected US Senators with the highest approval rating in the entire country. It's sad that you somehow think that because you got a decent job in your mid-twenties that you can look down your nose at this man.
From the sake of the right, Kasich has no way to win. He is basically the Romney of 2016 in all the tragic (not bad) ways. He doesn't appeal far enough to the right, and while I have no doubt he would probably get the moderate vote (might lose independents to Sanders), the right would not come out to support him. Hell, if by some luck of the draw Trump or Cruz decided to drop, none of that base would see Kasich as their go to guy.
Kasich is not playing to win, he's doing something else. He has a shot at Ohio, he does well with moderates, is seen as responsible and mature. The fact that he has not gotten involved in any of the fighting and is constantly boasting about how fiscally responsible he is, makes me think he's just angling for a spot in the administration of whomever ends up winning. Possibly the VP spot, or if not that at least a secretary position.
Rubio will drop out within the week and it will be Trump vs Cruz the rest of the way. Kasich might hang around just to see if he can do well in any other more liberal states.
Considering last week being a massive media fiasco that got him a TON of attention, and considering a lot of people get their information from these debates, it's pretty reasonable to assume the reason he was so civil tonight and acted like an actual candidate and not a bully for once is to appeal to people who don't know a ton about him.
Maybe that's the reason, but I don't think so. The reason he (and everyone else) was civil tonight is because the GOP has capitulated. The party elites have made a truce with Trump. It's the most logical explanation.
They'll still try and stop him of course. Rubio will drop out and Kasich and Cruz will try to come up with enough wins to take it to the convention, but tonight signals that the fighting is over.
In order to try and stop the party from imploding, I think the GOP has agreed call off the dogs and will fully support him as the nominee if he wins.
Speaking of whom, Sanders won MI but lost the majority of delegates anyway to Clinton. How's that work?
Super-delegates. On the Democratic side (the GOP doesn't have super-delegates) party elites count as extra delegates that are not voted on, and are allowed to pledge their support to whomever they want. No surprise, almost all of them are supporting Hillary. The catch is that they are allowed to switch their delegate support at any time. ie In 2008 many super-delegates came out for Hillary at the beginning and then later switched over to supporting Obama.
It is a system designed with the express purpose of knee-capping candidates like Trump and Sanders who are popular with voters but whom the party elites are not fans of.
The level of risk you are willing to take is higher than me. The part where they say"Among Nigerian Muslims, 20% say they see ISIS favorably". That means 8 percent of the population supports radical Islam. You consider 1 in 10 people that came from Nigeria are terrorists and we should let them in as an acceptable risk. Huh?
Just want to point out that someone who might "see ISIS favorably" is not the same thing as an actual terrorist.
They also say 7% of Nigerian Christians "see ISIS favorably".
Big night for Bernie last night. As per Nate Silver:
If Sanders winds up winning in Michigan, in fact, it will count as among the greatest polling errors in primary history. Clinton led by 21.3 percentage points in our final Michigan polling average. Previously, the candidate with the largest lead to lose a state in our database of well-polled primaries and caucuses was Walter Mondale, who led in New Hampshire by 17.1 percentage points but lost to Gary Hart in 1984.
Still an uphill battle, but winning Michigan means it's a ballgame.
They are going to have to put Cruz or Trump as the presidential candidate, rubio can be a VP. The simple truth is the voters don't want a "Establishment" candidate. The people showing up to vote want Trump and/or Cruz. The GOP didn't give voters what they expected so they got clobbered before the first ballots were cast. There only option is to destroy the GOP but the voters are going to go with the anti-establishment wing. They would get relegated to a 3rd party that can't even ride the coat tails of a movement.
We will see. Personally I don't count Kasich completely out of it yet. There has been a huge pushback against Trump since Super Tuesday and a lot of Republicans are waking up looking for a more "sane" option. It may be too little too late already, but if Kasich does well in Michigan and Ohio he could be back in it.
Of course the reverse also holds true. With Ohio being his home state, if he loses to Trump there and in Michigan, he's probably done. I assume that either he or Rubio will drop out after Florida/Ohio. One of them needs to go so all the not-Trump-not-Cruz voters know who to vote for.
I don't think Cruz has any kind of shot of getting 1200+ delegates, but I think he has a chance of preventing Trump from doing so. If neither candidate gets over 1000 delegates, then I think we might end up with someone not currently running for president getting the bid. I do not think the powers that be would jump both Cruz and Trump with either Kasich or Rubio, who performed so meekly against them. But if either Cruz or Trump gets over 1000 that might be enough of a mandate to force the establishment's hand. Fearing the repercussions of either a Cruz or Trump mandate, I will be cheering for Kasich in Ohio and Rubio in Florida. Go, Little Marco! Go!
I don't know how likely it is, but it is conceivable that if no candidate gets the required delegates the Republicans could do something where they put two of the candidates on the same ticket (ie Rubio/Cruz) and claim that combined they have the delegates to win, and therefore have a mandate. The most palatable option here to establishment Republicans is undoubtedly a Kasich/Rubio combo, but at this point I don't see anyway it works without Cruz in there unless we see a huge reversal of fortune in the next few weeks.
The GOP feud with Trump is coming full circle. Former Republican aide to Ronald Reagan now says he is voting for Trump in the hopes that Trump will finally destroy the current iteration of the Republican party.
“I think only when it has reached rock bottom can responsible Republicans once again come back and make it a reasonable governing party.”
“Right now,” Bartlett said his party is “just a coalition of cranks, and racists and bigots and religious kooks.” The Tea Party, Bartlett said, “have to be run out of the Party completely.”
"I think if he gets the nomination, and I hope he does, he will go down to a historic defeat. I think the Republican establishment will have no choice but to disown him. I think there will be a very substantial “Republicans for Hillary” effort and I think he will lose disastrously and hopefully bring down a lot of Republican senators and congressmen with him."
Bartlett went on to explain that his hope is that after suffering resounding electoral defeat, enough Republicans will finally come to their senses and — at least for the sake of winning the White House again — return to governing.
edit: just want to add so my opinion is clear, anyone who actually attacks someone is of course in the wrong and to blame for their own actions.
Kasich is not playing to win, he's doing something else. He has a shot at Ohio, he does well with moderates, is seen as responsible and mature. The fact that he has not gotten involved in any of the fighting and is constantly boasting about how fiscally responsible he is, makes me think he's just angling for a spot in the administration of whomever ends up winning. Possibly the VP spot, or if not that at least a secretary position.
Rubio will drop out within the week and it will be Trump vs Cruz the rest of the way. Kasich might hang around just to see if he can do well in any other more liberal states.
Maybe that's the reason, but I don't think so. The reason he (and everyone else) was civil tonight is because the GOP has capitulated. The party elites have made a truce with Trump. It's the most logical explanation.
They'll still try and stop him of course. Rubio will drop out and Kasich and Cruz will try to come up with enough wins to take it to the convention, but tonight signals that the fighting is over.
In order to try and stop the party from imploding, I think the GOP has agreed call off the dogs and will fully support him as the nominee if he wins.
Super-delegates. On the Democratic side (the GOP doesn't have super-delegates) party elites count as extra delegates that are not voted on, and are allowed to pledge their support to whomever they want. No surprise, almost all of them are supporting Hillary. The catch is that they are allowed to switch their delegate support at any time. ie In 2008 many super-delegates came out for Hillary at the beginning and then later switched over to supporting Obama.
It is a system designed with the express purpose of knee-capping candidates like Trump and Sanders who are popular with voters but whom the party elites are not fans of.
Just want to point out that someone who might "see ISIS favorably" is not the same thing as an actual terrorist.
They also say 7% of Nigerian Christians "see ISIS favorably".
Still an uphill battle, but winning Michigan means it's a ballgame.
We will see. Personally I don't count Kasich completely out of it yet. There has been a huge pushback against Trump since Super Tuesday and a lot of Republicans are waking up looking for a more "sane" option. It may be too little too late already, but if Kasich does well in Michigan and Ohio he could be back in it.
Of course the reverse also holds true. With Ohio being his home state, if he loses to Trump there and in Michigan, he's probably done. I assume that either he or Rubio will drop out after Florida/Ohio. One of them needs to go so all the not-Trump-not-Cruz voters know who to vote for.
I don't know how likely it is, but it is conceivable that if no candidate gets the required delegates the Republicans could do something where they put two of the candidates on the same ticket (ie Rubio/Cruz) and claim that combined they have the delegates to win, and therefore have a mandate. The most palatable option here to establishment Republicans is undoubtedly a Kasich/Rubio combo, but at this point I don't see anyway it works without Cruz in there unless we see a huge reversal of fortune in the next few weeks.
Gesundheit.
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/03/my_goal_is_to_destroy_the_republican_party_former_reagan_adviser_bruce_bartlett_explains_his_vote_for_donald_trump/