trump is serious!!!!!

[Bicycle Bill]

I wonder if the people you named agree that a candidate that they disagree with should be assassinated.....

.....now stalin hitler pol pot mao and Chavez would certainly agree with you. what strange heroes you have..


I despise Obama, but I prefer elections to change the path we are on.

Show me where I said, in so many words, that he should be assassinated.
I merely cited a quote from one of our illustrious founding fathers ... and the third man on a list that Trump wants to append his name to.
But I understand ... sometimes the only way people like you are able to reach a conclusion is to jump to it.

BTW — I see you mentioned Hitler (along with Stalin, Pol Pot, and Chairman Mao).  According to Godwin's Law, you just lost the argument.  And just for the record, in a WaPo news story from December 2015 Godwin himself commented on the Nazi and fascist comparisons being made by several articles on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying that

"If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump." (emphasis mine)

-"BB"-

[oldr_n_wsr]

It would be nice if a patriot would spill the blood of this wannabe tyrant!

Sorry, but he's a dangerous threat to the wellbeing of my beloved country and I wish him dead. Heart attack would be fine, painful toxic overdose of orange self-tanner is fine too.

Had something like this been said about Obama in '08 the term "racist, bigot" would have been used toward the one expressing that opion regardless of whether or not it was said in reference to skin color or just because of his political views.

[Big RR]

True, but Obama was born black; I sincerely doubt Trump was born orange--he chose to do that to himself (just as he chose his hairstyle). It's more like making fun of Obama's jacket or tie than making fun of his skin color.

[BoSoxGal]

You may be right oldr, and I may be a hypocrite then. But not in my lifetime nor in my study if American history has a person as vile as Trump come so close to the control of our military, foreign policy and more recently, nuclear codes.

And he is vile, hate filled, dangerously incompetent, and quite willing to order the intentional murder of innocents. Therefore I advocate his hasty demise and consider it for the greater good if his head explodes next time he battles between the canned TelePrompTer speech and the vicious rhetoric that naturally spews from his heart.

There is some satire and there is some sincere and passionate desire. I own no guns and barely have a running vehicle and though once I was a sharpshooter, my present physical condition makes typing too difficult most of the time so sniping isn't in my repertoire. However should the SS or FBI like to visit me I'll make tea and we can chat about how much I'd love to see trump dead. Literally or figuratively or both, I would celebrate.

You think I'm extreme? Go read what trump tweeted upon learning of the Orlando massacre. He's a fucking monster.

[Burning Petard]

Botox Gal. I deeply object to your most recent comment about Too Stupid Trump.

It is a vicious slander against all fucking monsters.

((((((snailgate))))))

[Lord Jim]

sniping isn't in my repertoire

You coulda fooled me...

[Gob]

Can we make 100 pages on the biggest buffoon in political history?

[RayThom]

I pray to Jesus Christ in my spare time that He directs Air Farce One into taking a nose dive into the pool at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach.


Thank you Lord for making America great again.

[Bicycle Bill]

Can we make 100 pages on the biggest buffoon in political history?

If Trump does come out of Cleveland with the nomination, wes's logorrhea will see to it we make TWO hundred pages by election day in November.

-"BB"-

[Gob]

[Joe Guy]

Urp!

Excuse me.

[Lord Jim]

It was nice to wake up to some good news for a change:

Clinton Has 12-Point Edge Over Trump in Bloomberg National Poll

Democrat Hillary Clinton has opened up a double-digit lead nationally over Republican Donald Trump, whose negatives remain unusually high for a presidential candidate amid early indications that the Orlando terrorist attack has had little direct impact on the 2016 race.

A new Bloomberg Politics national poll shows Clinton leading Trump 49 percent to 37 percent among likely voters in November's election, with 55 percent of those polled saying they could never vote for the real-estate developer and TV personality.



Most national polls in late May and early June showed a closer race, but they were taken before criticism intensified of Trump's charge that a U.S. judge overseeing fraud cases against Trump University is biased because of the judge’s Mexican heritage. Fifty-five percent of likely voters in the new poll said they were very bothered by those comments.

“Clinton has a number of advantages in this poll, in addition to her lead,” said pollster J. Ann Selzer, who oversaw the survey. “Her supporters are more enthusiastic than Trump’s and more voters overall see her becoming a more appealing candidate than say that for Trump.”

The poll was conducted Friday through Monday, with additional questions about terrorism, guns, and Muslims added after the carnage early Sunday in Orlando. Results from those questions have a higher margin of error—plus or minus 4.9 percentage points—than the rest of the poll. The poll used likely voters for its presidential horse-race questions, while most national surveys earlier this year have used the larger universes of registered voters or simply adults.

Trump's suggestions that Obama hasn't taken forceful enough action to stop domestic terrorism because he sides with Muslims landed with a thud for the majority of Americans, with 61 percent disagreeing with the suggestion. A strong majority—69 percent—also disagree that law enforcement agencies should increase surveillance of all American Muslims, even if it conflicts with civil liberties.[ While this poll includes the day Trump made his speech about the attack on Monday, it doesn't reflect the full impact of his outrageous comments. These numbers suggest that his doubling down on the Muslim ban and his insinuation that Obama may actually be in collusion with the terrorists will drive him down even further in subsequent polls.]

Similar proportions of those younger than 35 and those with incomes of less than $50,000 also say they could never support him.

How things play out in the dozen or so battleground states that typically decide presidential elections may be more important than broad national trends, but some indicators are telling. Clinton dominates with many of the groups typically important in general elections, winning the support of 57 percent of women, 58 percent of those who aren't married, and 77 percent of non-whites.

Those who backed Clinton's nomination challenger, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, are mostly rallying around her. She receives 55 percent from Sanders supporters, while Trump gets 22 percent and Johnson gets 18 percent.[As time goes on, those numbers will likely improve some for Clinton]

More of Clinton's supporters are excited than Trump's as the two embark on the start of the general election, with 43 percent of the Democrat's backers saying they're “very enthusiastic” about their nominee, compared to 33 percent who say that among those backing Trump.

Among all likely general-election voters, nearly two-thirds say Trump is becoming less appealing to them, while 51 percent say that of Clinton.

The former secretary of state is far from universally loved, but the share of likely voters who say they could never vote for her—43 percent—is much lower than Trump's 55 percent.

Other troubling findings for Trump in poll include how 63 percent of women say they could never vote for him. “If you can never get the vote of two in three women, who are a majority of voters, that is something that has to change for Trump to emerge victorious,” Selzer said.

For his part, Trump is winning 50 percent support from white men, compared to 33 percent for Clinton and 13 percent for Johnson. He's getting 54 percent support among evangelical Christians, while Clinton gets 36 percent from that group.

White men are among Trump's strongest demographics. But even there he's not showing as much strength as the party's last nominee, Mitt Romney, who beat Obama in 2012 by 62 percent to 35 percent among white men, according to exit polls. [If Trump only gets 50% of the white male vote, he will lose all 50 states. He needs close to 70% to have any chance at all.]

More of Clinton's supporters are excited than Trump's as the two embark on the start of the general election, with 43 percent of the Democrat's backers saying they're “very enthusiastic” about their nominee, compared to 33 percent who say that among those backing Trump.

Among all likely general-election voters, nearly two-thirds say Trump is becoming less appealing to them, while 51 percent say that of Clinton.

There's more of the article at this link, as well as a link to the poll itself:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic ... -june-2016

[Lord Jim]

And the good news just keeps on coming:

Negative views of Donald Trump just hit a new campaign high: 7 in 10 Americans

In the latest sign Americans are dreading their general election options -- and particularly one of them -- negative views of Donald Trump have surged to their highest level of the 2016 campaign, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Trump's unfavorable rating, in fact, far surpasses Hillary Clinton's even as the presumptive Democratic nominee receives her worst ratings in more than two decades in public life.

The poll finds 70 percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of Trump, including a 56 percent majority who feel this way "strongly." Negative ratings of Trump are up 10 percentage points from last month to their highest point since he announced his candidacy last summer, nearly reaching the level seen before his campaign began (71 percent). The survey was conducted Wednesday through Sunday among a random national sample of U.S. adults, coming after last week's primary contests, but with the large majority of interviews completed before Sunday's massacre at an Orlando club.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... americans/

The more these numbers continue, the more GOP elected officials will abandon Trump, and the more donors will recoil from supporting him...

And there's every reason to believe these trends are going to continue, because as Trump made clear in his speech on Monday, he has no intention whatsoever of backing away from the vile, toxic and flagrantly dishonest approach he has used all along.

In fact he keeps doubling down. Apparently his idea of how to become more "Presidential" is to exclude major news organizations from his press conferences and raise the accusation that the current POTUS is in league with the radical Islamic terrorists...

And the more this continues, the more possible it becomes that an effort to derail his nomination at the convention could succeed. The Convention Rules Committee could require a super majority on the first ballot for the nomination, or unbind the delegates for the first ballot. Either move would sink Trump, because (as he repeatedly whined about) nearly 2/3 of the delegates pledged to him aren't really Trump supporters. (They were selected by the state parties, and consist of party regulars) That fact also means that theoretically these rules changes could easily be ratified by a majority of the delegates after they are passed by the Rules Committee.

The party leadership has been extremely reluctant to embrace this strategy, because of the fear of the electoral backlash from the Trump supporters if the nomination is taken from him. But if his behavior keeps up, (and the indicators are if anything he will get nothing but worse.) and his numbers continue to sink, this calculus could definitely change.

The calculus "Well, maybe he'll lose the election but by not alienating his supporters we can hold the House and maybe the Senate" is one thing, "This SOB is going to lose so badly that if we don't dump him we'll definitely lose both Houses of Congress and do major damage to our own reputations and the party" is quite another...

And there's another possibility that could get Trump out of the race...

If he decides that this is no longer "fun" for him, his crowds keep getting smaller, he can't raise the money he needs, and that he can't possibly win...

He may just wake up one morning and say "the hell with it" and withdraw, rather than go down as the biggest LOSER in American political history...

I could see this guy doing this even after the convention (in which case the Republican National Committee members would select the nominee)

[Long Run]

For now, though, this poll is an outlier as I have not seen another one recently that is even close to this big of a gap. The analysis seems correct based on how things stand today, most of Sanders voters will go to Clinton and a significant number of disaffected R's will vote Libertarian. The thing with Trump is that he is popular/tolerable in small doses: with all Donald, all the time, how is he going to not annoy the hell out of the independent 20-25%, as well as those R's and D's who might swing his way or not?

I agree that for now he is having a lot of fun, but if he falls way behind in the horse race, he may well decide to go do something else.

[Lord Jim]

I agree that this poll shows a larger gap than others, but it is also the first poll taken after extensive coverage of his attacks on the judge and the only one to include any responses since the Orlando terrorist attack...

Also, Trump hasn't led in any poll since mid-May:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5491.html

Well have to see how this trends, but as I said I believe all the elements are in place for things to get worse for him...He's made very clear there will be no "pivot"; the only thing this guy knows how to do is double down on the crazy...

Case in point:

On Tuesday, Obama ripped Trump while explaining his reluctance to refer to “radical Islam.” And Trump, who had been so outraged by the Post’s headline, responded by, well, accusing Obama of treason.

“President Obama claims to know our enemy, and yet he continues to prioritize our enemy over our allies, [This from the guy who wants to blow up NATO and admires Vladimir Putin]and for that matter, the American people,” Trump said in a statement to the AP. “When I am President, it will always be America First.”

And this:

At a rally Tuesday night in Greensboro, N.C., Trump attacked Obama for criticizing him and defended barring foreign Muslims.

“Once again we’ve seen that political correctness is deadly,” Trump said.

“And just so you understand: I have many Muslim friends,” he added at one point. “There doesn’t seem to be assimilation.[As far as the US is concerned, this is complete bullshit] We don’t know what’s going on.”

[Lord Jim]

Well, there he goes again...

In bizarre tweet, Donald Trump promotes conspiracy theory about Obama administration 'supporting' ISIS

In a strangely worded tweet, Donald Trump on Wednesday promoted a conspiracy theory that the Obama administration supported the Iraqi terrorist group that eventually morphed into ISIS.

In reference to the recent terror attack in Orlando, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee suggested this week that Obama either "doesn't get it, or he gets it better than anybody understands," which many interpreted as implying that Obama is sympathetic to ISIS.

Trump took it up a notch on Wednesday, sharing a Breitbart story headlined: "Hillary Clinton Received Secret Memo Stating Obama Admin 'Support' for ISIS."

"An: Media fell all over themselves criticizing what DonaldTrump "may have insinuated about @POTUS."" Trump tweeted, apparently referring to himself in the third person. "But he's right."

He followed it up with a tweet saying: "The press is so totally biased that we have no choice but to take our tough but fair and smart message directly to the people!"

The Breitbart story alleged that Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, "received a classified intelligence report stating that the Obama administration was actively supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq, the terrorist group that became the Islamic State."

Breitbart is a notorious right-wing website that often shares outlandish stories with little to no basis in fact. One reason the Breitbart story doesn't make much sense is because Al Qaeda in Iraq was absorbed into the umbrella group called the Islamic State of Iraq before Obama took office in 2009.

The 2012 memo reportedly came from someone within the Defense Intelligence Agency and included "reporting from the field by an intelligence agent," according to Breitbart. The right-wing news outlet also states that "the report identifies Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) as being one of the principal elements of the Syrian opposition, which the West was choosing to 'support.'"

The publication of Breitbart’s article is unusual since its interpretation of the memo was widely debunked at the time.

Middle East scholar Juan Cole derided the idea that the memo proves that the U.S. was supporting ISIS as “an unfounded conspiracy theory.” Rather, it was a “correct assessment of where things were going in Syria.” The memo states that “those powers (e.g. Turkey and the Gulf monarchies) supporting the opposition wanted to see the declaration of a Salafi (hard line Sunni) breakaway statelet, in order to put pressure on the al-Assad regime.”

It does not say the United States supports an Islamic State and “warns that any such development could lead to the break-up of Iraq, an eventuality that the authors clearly felt was undesirable.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-t ... sis-2016-6

[rubato]

Breitbart; when you want right-wing bullshit and you want it now.

Breitbart; you need shared delusions, they make them.

Breitbart; 9 years of feeding crap to Republicans until they can't tell the difference anymore.


yrs,
rubato

[Guinevere]

Some comic relief from the WaPo after being denied press credentials from the head Trumpanzee:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/co ... _tw-bottom

My personal favorite bit:

Facts are often biased against Donald Trump and should be used sparingly in reporting, if at all. Think of them as a garnish, not an entree.

[Lord Jim]

[Sue U]

My fave from the WaPo style guide:

Q: In the statement issued by the Donald Trump campaign stating that it will stop credentialing Post reporters, the campaign said, “Mr. Trump does not mind a bad story, but it has to be honest.” What is a bad story that is honest that Mr. Trump would not mind?

A: A story about Hillary Clinton.