Debate Now The 2016 Campaign, Election and Aftermath

[Foxfyre]

it was the National Enquirer that broke the story of the Bill Clinton/Gennifer Flowers affair. And it was all true. Both she and he confirmed it.

Even a blind squirrel can sometimes find a nut.

That is true. So you can't conclude that just because it is a blind squirrel that it will starve. And while I agree with you that the National Enquirer represents the worst in yellow journalism, irresponsible sensationalism, and/or just plain scummy and sometimes cruel and hateful editorial policy, we cannot conclude that it is always going to be wrong.

In this case I believe it is.

But they are too wise to just manufacture a story out of whole cloth themselves as that puts them at too much risk of violating the libel laws and law suits, so they will have a source to point to. I do not believe that source was Donald Trump as Cruz says because I think the Donald would have nothing to gain by it and would have everything to lose. He's not that dumb.

So who did?

 

[320 Years of History]

it was the National Enquirer that broke the story of the Bill Clinton/Gennifer Flowers affair. And it was all true. Both she and he confirmed it.

Even a blind squirrel can sometimes find a nut.

That is true. So you can't conclude that just because it is a blind squirrel that it will starve. And while I agree with you that the National Enquirer represents the worst in yellow journalism, irresponsible sensationalism, and/or just plain scummy and sometimes cruel and hateful editorial policy, we cannot conclude that it is always going to be wrong.

In this case I believe it is.

But they are too wise to just manufacture a story out of whole cloth themselves as that puts them at too much risk of violating the libel laws and law suits, so they will have a source to point to. I do not believe that source was Donald Trump as Cruz says because I think the Donald would have nothing to gain by it and would have everything to lose. He's not that dumb.

So who did?

All that has what to do with the points I made in response to your first mention of the National Enquirer? Let's stay on topic, please. That publication isn't the topic that was being discussed. To refresh your's and other readers memories....Debate Now - The 2016 Campaign, Election and Aftermath.

You'll recall you'd asked what deeds that Mrs. Clinton has performed militate for her being qualified to be President. I responded to that question with a very long list of specific accomplishments and a question in reply to you. That question is found in the post linked just above. I am waiting for your answer.

 

[Foxfyre]

it was the National Enquirer that broke the story of the Bill Clinton/Gennifer Flowers affair. And it was all true. Both she and he confirmed it.

Even a blind squirrel can sometimes find a nut.

That is true. So you can't conclude that just because it is a blind squirrel that it will starve. And while I agree with you that the National Enquirer represents the worst in yellow journalism, irresponsible sensationalism, and/or just plain scummy and sometimes cruel and hateful editorial policy, we cannot conclude that it is always going to be wrong.

In this case I believe it is.

But they are too wise to just manufacture a story out of whole cloth themselves as that puts them at too much risk of violating the libel laws and law suits, so they will have a source to point to. I do not believe that source was Donald Trump as Cruz says because I think the Donald would have nothing to gain by it and would have everything to lose. He's not that dumb.

So who did?

All that has what to do with the points I made in response to your first mention of the National Enquirer? Let's stay on topic, please. That publication isn't the topic that was being discussed. To refresh your's and other readers memories....Debate Now - The 2016 Campaign, Election and Aftermath.

You'll recall you'd asked what deeds that Mrs. Clinton has performed militate for her being qualified to be President. I responded to that question with a very long list of specific accomplishments and a question in reply to you. That question is found in the post linked just above. I am waiting for your answer.

Sorry but such a long list of undefended content in such a massive wall of words is a bit off putting. I believe I did address it and did so as much as I felt inspired to do.

And this thread is not limited to Mrs. Clinton's accomplishments or lack thereof, so any subject relevant to the current campaign cycle and its aftermath IS on topic. And the National Enquirer article is relevant to this campaign cycle.

 

[320 Years of History]

it was the National Enquirer that broke the story of the Bill Clinton/Gennifer Flowers affair. And it was all true. Both she and he confirmed it.

Even a blind squirrel can sometimes find a nut.

That is true. So you can't conclude that just because it is a blind squirrel that it will starve. And while I agree with you that the National Enquirer represents the worst in yellow journalism, irresponsible sensationalism, and/or just plain scummy and sometimes cruel and hateful editorial policy, we cannot conclude that it is always going to be wrong.

In this case I believe it is.

But they are too wise to just manufacture a story out of whole cloth themselves as that puts them at too much risk of violating the libel laws and law suits, so they will have a source to point to. I do not believe that source was Donald Trump as Cruz says because I think the Donald would have nothing to gain by it and would have everything to lose. He's not that dumb.

So who did?

All that has what to do with the points I made in response to your first mention of the National Enquirer? Let's stay on topic, please. That publication isn't the topic that was being discussed. To refresh your's and other readers memories....Debate Now - The 2016 Campaign, Election and Aftermath.

You'll recall you'd asked what deeds that Mrs. Clinton has performed militate for her being qualified to be President. I responded to that question with a very long list of specific accomplishments and a question in reply to you. That question is found in the post linked just above. I am waiting for your answer.

Sorry but such a long list of undefended content in such a massive wall of words is a bit off putting. I believe I did address it and did so as much as I felt inspired to do.

And this thread is not limited to Mrs. Clinton's accomplishments or lack thereof, so any subject relevant to the current campaign cycle and its aftermath IS on topic. And the National Enquirer article is relevant to this campaign cycle.

Red:
The accomplishments listed are undefended because to anyone who's been a senior executive and/or had specific hiring and firing authority over other executives, the value of those accomplishments speak for themselves. Your merely writing them all off -- implicitly by citing none in particular -- by summarily and collectively pronouncing them as "gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric," thereby unilaterally discounting their merit, is telling, particularly when the verity of those things being truly things she's done isn't in question for each and every one of them is verifiable from multiple public sources.

You are the one who pronounced them as "gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric." Surely you must have seen some that fit that description in your mind, yet you refrain from identifying even those that spurred your remark. Odd...and all the more so seeing as I haven't requested you address every accomplishment on the list, or even discuss what in your mind makes them without merit and what about them provides no benefit to her (or anyone else) being President. All I asked is that you identify the ones that inspired the noted remark you made. That is apparently asking too much, even as you must surely have read some of the list and already classified some thusly in your mind. Yet Mrs. Clinton is whom you accuse of "lacking conviction."

 

[Foxfyre]

it was the National Enquirer that broke the story of the Bill Clinton/Gennifer Flowers affair. And it was all true. Both she and he confirmed it.

Even a blind squirrel can sometimes find a nut.

That is true. So you can't conclude that just because it is a blind squirrel that it will starve. And while I agree with you that the National Enquirer represents the worst in yellow journalism, irresponsible sensationalism, and/or just plain scummy and sometimes cruel and hateful editorial policy, we cannot conclude that it is always going to be wrong.

In this case I believe it is.

But they are too wise to just manufacture a story out of whole cloth themselves as that puts them at too much risk of violating the libel laws and law suits, so they will have a source to point to. I do not believe that source was Donald Trump as Cruz says because I think the Donald would have nothing to gain by it and would have everything to lose. He's not that dumb.

So who did?

All that has what to do with the points I made in response to your first mention of the National Enquirer? Let's stay on topic, please. That publication isn't the topic that was being discussed. To refresh your's and other readers memories....Debate Now - The 2016 Campaign, Election and Aftermath.

You'll recall you'd asked what deeds that Mrs. Clinton has performed militate for her being qualified to be President. I responded to that question with a very long list of specific accomplishments and a question in reply to you. That question is found in the post linked just above. I am waiting for your answer.

Sorry but such a long list of undefended content in such a massive wall of words is a bit off putting. I believe I did address it and did so as much as I felt inspired to do.

And this thread is not limited to Mrs. Clinton's accomplishments or lack thereof, so any subject relevant to the current campaign cycle and its aftermath IS on topic. And the National Enquirer article is relevant to this campaign cycle.

Red:
The accomplishments listed are undefended because to anyone who's been a senior executive and/or had specific hiring and firing authority over other executives, the value of those accomplishments speak for themselves. Your merely writing them all off -- implicitly by citing none in particular -- by summarily and collectively pronouncing them as "gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric," thereby unilaterally discounting their merit, is telling, particularly when the verity of those things being truly things she's done isn't in question for each and every one of them is verifiable from multiple public sources.

You are the one who pronounced them as "gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric." Surely you must have seen some that fit that description in your mind, yet you refrain from identifying even those that spurred your remark. Odd...and all the more so seeing as I haven't requested you address every accomplishment on the list, or even discuss what in your mind makes them without merit and what about them provides no benefit to her (or anyone else) being President. All I asked is that you identify the ones that inspired the noted remark you made. That is apparently asking too much, even as you must surely have read some of the list and already classified some thusly in your mind. Yet Mrs. Clinton is whom you accuse of "lacking conviction."

I did not pronounce them as 'gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric.' I said that gratuitous appointments or awards and self-promoting rhetoric are not accomplishments that qualify somebody to be President.

You have not defended any of the items on your cut and pasted bullet list. I feel no obligation to go into any detail regarding them.

So moving along. . . .

 

[Foxfyre]

It seems Bernie Sanders made a clean sweep of the weekend caucuses winning 13 of the 16 Alaska delegates and taking all in Hawaii and Washington. And he is the predicted winner of the upcoming Wisconsin and Wyoming primaries. I wonder if Hillary would be in trouble without her super delegates?

 

[320 Years of History]

Even a blind squirrel can sometimes find a nut.

That is true. So you can't conclude that just because it is a blind squirrel that it will starve. And while I agree with you that the National Enquirer represents the worst in yellow journalism, irresponsible sensationalism, and/or just plain scummy and sometimes cruel and hateful editorial policy, we cannot conclude that it is always going to be wrong.

In this case I believe it is.

But they are too wise to just manufacture a story out of whole cloth themselves as that puts them at too much risk of violating the libel laws and law suits, so they will have a source to point to. I do not believe that source was Donald Trump as Cruz says because I think the Donald would have nothing to gain by it and would have everything to lose. He's not that dumb.

So who did?

All that has what to do with the points I made in response to your first mention of the National Enquirer? Let's stay on topic, please. That publication isn't the topic that was being discussed. To refresh your's and other readers memories....Debate Now - The 2016 Campaign, Election and Aftermath.

You'll recall you'd asked what deeds that Mrs. Clinton has performed militate for her being qualified to be President. I responded to that question with a very long list of specific accomplishments and a question in reply to you. That question is found in the post linked just above. I am waiting for your answer.

Sorry but such a long list of undefended content in such a massive wall of words is a bit off putting. I believe I did address it and did so as much as I felt inspired to do.

And this thread is not limited to Mrs. Clinton's accomplishments or lack thereof, so any subject relevant to the current campaign cycle and its aftermath IS on topic. And the National Enquirer article is relevant to this campaign cycle.

Red:
The accomplishments listed are undefended because to anyone who's been a senior executive and/or had specific hiring and firing authority over other executives, the value of those accomplishments speak for themselves. Your merely writing them all off -- implicitly by citing none in particular -- by summarily and collectively pronouncing them as "gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric," thereby unilaterally discounting their merit, is telling, particularly when the verity of those things being truly things she's done isn't in question for each and every one of them is verifiable from multiple public sources.

You are the one who pronounced them as "gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric." Surely you must have seen some that fit that description in your mind, yet you refrain from identifying even those that spurred your remark. Odd...and all the more so seeing as I haven't requested you address every accomplishment on the list, or even discuss what in your mind makes them without merit and what about them provides no benefit to her (or anyone else) being President. All I asked is that you identify the ones that inspired the noted remark you made. That is apparently asking too much, even as you must surely have read some of the list and already classified some thusly in your mind. Yet Mrs. Clinton is whom you accuse of "lacking conviction."

I did not pronounce them as 'gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric.' I said that gratuitous appointments or awards and self-promoting rhetoric are not accomplishments that qualify somebody to be President.

You have not defended any of the items on your cut and pasted bullet list. I feel no obligation to go into any detail regarding them.

So moving along. . . .

Okay, so now you resort to equivocation....really....the implication of the statement in which that phrase was given is palpable....but whatever....The accomplishments I listed aren't opinions that need to be defended. They are things the woman did.

 

[Foxfyre]

That is true. So you can't conclude that just because it is a blind squirrel that it will starve. And while I agree with you that the National Enquirer represents the worst in yellow journalism, irresponsible sensationalism, and/or just plain scummy and sometimes cruel and hateful editorial policy, we cannot conclude that it is always going to be wrong.

In this case I believe it is.

But they are too wise to just manufacture a story out of whole cloth themselves as that puts them at too much risk of violating the libel laws and law suits, so they will have a source to point to. I do not believe that source was Donald Trump as Cruz says because I think the Donald would have nothing to gain by it and would have everything to lose. He's not that dumb.

So who did?

All that has what to do with the points I made in response to your first mention of the National Enquirer? Let's stay on topic, please. That publication isn't the topic that was being discussed. To refresh your's and other readers memories....Debate Now - The 2016 Campaign, Election and Aftermath.

You'll recall you'd asked what deeds that Mrs. Clinton has performed militate for her being qualified to be President. I responded to that question with a very long list of specific accomplishments and a question in reply to you. That question is found in the post linked just above. I am waiting for your answer.

Sorry but such a long list of undefended content in such a massive wall of words is a bit off putting. I believe I did address it and did so as much as I felt inspired to do.

And this thread is not limited to Mrs. Clinton's accomplishments or lack thereof, so any subject relevant to the current campaign cycle and its aftermath IS on topic. And the National Enquirer article is relevant to this campaign cycle.

Red:
The accomplishments listed are undefended because to anyone who's been a senior executive and/or had specific hiring and firing authority over other executives, the value of those accomplishments speak for themselves. Your merely writing them all off -- implicitly by citing none in particular -- by summarily and collectively pronouncing them as "gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric," thereby unilaterally discounting their merit, is telling, particularly when the verity of those things being truly things she's done isn't in question for each and every one of them is verifiable from multiple public sources.

You are the one who pronounced them as "gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric." Surely you must have seen some that fit that description in your mind, yet you refrain from identifying even those that spurred your remark. Odd...and all the more so seeing as I haven't requested you address every accomplishment on the list, or even discuss what in your mind makes them without merit and what about them provides no benefit to her (or anyone else) being President. All I asked is that you identify the ones that inspired the noted remark you made. That is apparently asking too much, even as you must surely have read some of the list and already classified some thusly in your mind. Yet Mrs. Clinton is whom you accuse of "lacking conviction."

I did not pronounce them as 'gratuitous appointments or awards, and self-promoting rhetoric.' I said that gratuitous appointments or awards and self-promoting rhetoric are not accomplishments that qualify somebody to be President.

You have not defended any of the items on your cut and pasted bullet list. I feel no obligation to go into any detail regarding them.

So moving along. . . .

Okay, so now you resort to equivocation....really....the implication of the statement in which that phrase was given is palpable....but whatever....The accomplishments I listed aren't opinions that need to be defended. They are things the woman did.

In your opinion. Undefended bullet points are not a really convincing argument to those highly skeptical of their probable value.

And I did not equivocate. I simply corrected the mischaracterization of what I said.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Fox, you are one tough old bird. Are you writing a novel. Anyway, the cavalry is coming( not that you need it). My time off has given me new perspective and energy. Will be in the trenches with you shortly. I am already exhausted reading this whole thread. Looks like th zombie apocalypse is almost upon us. Cheers!

 

[Foxfyre]

Fox, you are one tough old bird. Are you writing a novel. Anyway, the cavalry is coming( not that you need it). My time off has given me new perspective and energy. Will be in the trenches with you shortly. I am already exhausted reading this whole thread. Looks like th zombie apocalypse is almost upon us. Cheers!

LOL. Not so tough Shrimp. Just stubborn maybe when I am certain I am right. And no, not a novel, but I am writing a history. Glad you're back though.

 

[candycorn]

[


Well OK but what we are talking about is whether FLOTUS is in play for HRC as part of her exceptional resume....correct? If she had been a nobody in the role like Nancy Reagan it would be silly to point out for the most part although you get some standing in meeting with the Gorbachevs and Queen Elizabeth. If not tactical or strategic...at least you have an understanding of their thought process or what they feel is important.

HRC was leading the charge on Healthcare. Did it fail? Yes. Did it lay the groundwork for Ocare, yes. In fact, Nancy's Just Say No has backtracked into pot being widely accepted.

Just my 2 cents. Not "total zeroes" as humans but with a unique possibility to stress any pet topic, those 3 did zilch. Not HRC

Bold Black:
Are we? I wasn't.
[/quote]

Then why debate it at all if not in the context of 2016 ?

[
Red:
Really? You read the content at the links I provided for each of them and you conclude they've done nothing? If what they did counts as "nothing" in your book, I have to wonder how anyone could ever live up to your standard of what "doing something" means.

And no, I didn't presume you meant "total zeroes" as humans. I realize, or at least assume, you aren't that cruel or demanding.

From a public policy standpoint, they were zeroes. Hillary shames them all

 

[Foxfyre]

I heard an interesting commentary earlier this morning.

Most of us are aware of the Super Delegates in the Democrat campaign process. It seems that in 2008 those delegates were considered Hillary's until the party elite recognized the national love affair with Barack Obama and, apparently correctly, determined him the one most likely to drag a majority of Democrats into Congress and unseat the GOP power there. So they switched the super delegates to Obama. As it turned out Obama did win the popular vote without the super delegates, but had the party preferred Clinton, the super delegates could have denied Obama the nomination. Now in 2016, the super delegates are again pledged to Hillary and I can't imagine the DNC wanting Bernie Sanders as their nominee.

Well it turns out the RNC isn't quite so autocratic but they have their own tricks up their sleeves. They have been assigning delegates who are not supporters of Donald Trump so that if they are successful in forcing an open convention, which is the current game plan, those delegates will be bound to Trump for only one vote. And when that first vote is successful, those delegates will vote for whomever the RNC wants to be the nominee.

Now I don't know if any of this is 100% accurate because it is based on one commentary I heard. But it does make sense. It will be interesting to see if it actually plays out as it was described.

 

[320 Years of History]

[


Well OK but what we are talking about is whether FLOTUS is in play for HRC as part of her exceptional resume....correct? If she had been a nobody in the role like Nancy Reagan it would be silly to point out for the most part although you get some standing in meeting with the Gorbachevs and Queen Elizabeth. If not tactical or strategic...at least you have an understanding of their thought process or what they feel is important.

HRC was leading the charge on Healthcare. Did it fail? Yes. Did it lay the groundwork for Ocare, yes. In fact, Nancy's Just Say No has backtracked into pot being widely accepted.

Just my 2 cents. Not "total zeroes" as humans but with a unique possibility to stress any pet topic, those 3 did zilch. Not HRC

Bold Black:
Are we? I wasn't.

Then why debate it at all if not in the context of 2016 ?[/QUOTE]

I wasn't talking about the merit of having been FLOTUS as a qualification for being POTUS because FLOTUS is not a deliberate accomplishment. It's something that happens to a woman, that she becomes not by choice, but because she happens to be married to the POTUS. The accomplishments I listed earlier are things Mrs. Clinton did in her own right.

If you are saying that being FLOTUS provided Mrs. Clinton with insights that will contribute to how she'd carry out her duties if she becomes President, I agree it will. I simply don't see it as a specific accomplishment for which she can rightfully take full credit.

 

[candycorn]

[


Well OK but what we are talking about is whether FLOTUS is in play for HRC as part of her exceptional resume....correct? If she had been a nobody in the role like Nancy Reagan it would be silly to point out for the most part although you get some standing in meeting with the Gorbachevs and Queen Elizabeth. If not tactical or strategic...at least you have an understanding of their thought process or what they feel is important.

HRC was leading the charge on Healthcare. Did it fail? Yes. Did it lay the groundwork for Ocare, yes. In fact, Nancy's Just Say No has backtracked into pot being widely accepted.

Just my 2 cents. Not "total zeroes" as humans but with a unique possibility to stress any pet topic, those 3 did zilch. Not HRC

Bold Black:
Are we? I wasn't.

Then why debate it at all if not in the context of 2016 ?

I wasn't talking about the merit of having been FLOTUS as a qualification for being POTUS because FLOTUS is not a deliberate accomplishment. It's something that happens to a woman, that she becomes not by choice, but because she happens to be married to the POTUS. The accomplishments I listed earlier are things Mrs. Clinton did in her own right.

If you are saying that being FLOTUS provided Mrs. Clinton with insights that will contribute to how she'd carry out her duties if she becomes President, I agree it will. I simply don't see it as a specific accomplishment for which she can rightfully take full credit.[/QUOTE]

Well, no, I’m saying she was put into a position to where she had a bully pulpit, some clout, and for certainly a political partner…took the ball, and ran with it. That being said, she was a partner with her husband. How much so? I wonder but she was there.

I cannot think of any other first ladies in our lifetimes who utilized the bully pulpit, their clout, and used their influence with their political partner to further an agenda.

Whether or not it was a popular initiative (healthcare), is immaterial.

You seem to be thinking that because it wasn’t some sort of grand scheme that it doesn’t count. I think if you’re presented with the opportunity and do nothing with it; that is much worse than taking the initiative.

 

[320 Years of History]

[


Well OK but what we are talking about is whether FLOTUS is in play for HRC as part of her exceptional resume....correct? If she had been a nobody in the role like Nancy Reagan it would be silly to point out for the most part although you get some standing in meeting with the Gorbachevs and Queen Elizabeth. If not tactical or strategic...at least you have an understanding of their thought process or what they feel is important.

HRC was leading the charge on Healthcare. Did it fail? Yes. Did it lay the groundwork for Ocare, yes. In fact, Nancy's Just Say No has backtracked into pot being widely accepted.

Just my 2 cents. Not "total zeroes" as humans but with a unique possibility to stress any pet topic, those 3 did zilch. Not HRC

Bold Black:
Are we? I wasn't.

Then why debate it at all if not in the context of 2016 ?

I wasn't talking about the merit of having been FLOTUS as a qualification for being POTUS because FLOTUS is not a deliberate accomplishment. It's something that happens to a woman, that she becomes not by choice, but because she happens to be married to the POTUS. The accomplishments I listed earlier are things Mrs. Clinton did in her own right.

If you are saying that being FLOTUS provided Mrs. Clinton with insights that will contribute to how she'd carry out her duties if she becomes President, I agree it will. I simply don't see it as a specific accomplishment for which she can rightfully take full credit.

Well, no, I’m saying she was put into a position to where she had a bully pulpit, some clout, and for certainly a political partner…took the ball, and ran with it. That being said, she was a partner with her husband. How much so? I wonder but she was there.

I cannot think of any other first ladies in our lifetimes who utilized the bully pulpit, their clout, and used their influence with their political partner to further an agenda.

Whether or not it was a popular initiative (healthcare), is immaterial.

You seem to be thinking that because it wasn’t some sort of grand scheme that it doesn’t count. I think if you’re presented with the opportunity and do nothing with it; that is much worse than taking the initiative.[/QUOTE]

Red:
Well, in yous and my lifetimes, maybe not, but then I really hate trying to rank things that way. There's no question that Mrs. Clinton assumed of her own volition a very active role in using her FLOTUS position to champion causes, aid her husband in decision making and usher legislation to the point of ratification. That said, it'd be tough to say between her and Rosalynn Carter, who actually sat in cabinet meetings with President Carter and was, some say, his closest advisor on all policy matters. I think it even fair to say that absent Mrs. Carter's very active participation in policymaking, Mrs. Clinton may not have had the opportunity to have played the role she did. Jackie Kennedy too was hugely influential, albeit from behind the scenes.

In my parent's lifetime, however, Edith Wilson comes immediately to mind. So does Eleanor Roosevelt, who like Mrs. Clinton, advocated for civil rights, which was not popular, moreover, not popular in her husband's own party.

Blue:
The only thing I think that doesn't count is her acquiring the FLOTUS title. What she did with it most certainly counts.

 

[Foxfyre]

With April Fool looming tomorrow, we interrupt this discussion with an interesting observation that I shamelessly stole elsewhere because I thought it was funny:

Reasons To Vote For Trump​

Some special qualifications:

Obama is against Trump
The Media is against Trump
The establishment Democrats are against Trump
The establishment Republicans are against Trump
The Pope is against Trump
The UN is against Trump
The EU is against Trump
China is against Trump
Mexico is against Trump
Soros is against Trump
Black Lives Matter is against Trump
MoveOn.Org is against Trump
Koch Bro's are against Trump
Politically correct liberals/progressives are against Trump

And as a bonus:

Cher says she will leave the country
Mylie Cyrus says she will leave the country
Whoopi says she will leave the country
Rosie says she will leave the country
Al Sharpton says he will leave the country
Gov. Brown says California will build a wall

And the best reason:

Trump is not Hillary

Sorry. Couldn't resist

 

[320 Years of History]

With April Fool looming tomorrow, we interrupt this discussion with an interesting observation that I shamelessly stole elsewhere because I thought it was funny:

Reasons To Vote For Trump​

Some special qualifications:

Obama is against Trump
The Media is against Trump
The establishment Democrats are against Trump
The establishment Republicans are against Trump
The Pope is against Trump
The UN is against Trump
The EU is against Trump
China is against Trump
Mexico is against Trump
Soros is against Trump
Black Lives Matter is against Trump
MoveOn.Org is against Trump
Koch Bro's are against Trump
Politically correct liberals/progressives are against Trump

And as a bonus:

Cher says she will leave the country
Mylie Cyrus says she will leave the country
Whoopi says she will leave the country
Rosie says she will leave the country
Al Sharpton says he will leave the country
Gov. Brown says California will build a wall

And the best reason:

Trump is not Hillary

Sorry. Couldn't resist

Well, I have to agree that using those as one's main reasons to vote for Trump would make one, if not an April Fool, at least a November Fool.

 

[Ringel05]

Other....

See my sigline....... At least we'll know exactly what we're getting........

 

[Foxfyre]

Other....

See my sigline....... At least we'll know exactly what we're getting........

The way it seems to be stacking up in Wisconsin, you may have a better chance than any of us to get your candidate elected.

 

[Foxfyre]

The polls have been running steady the past week with Ted Cruz a consistent 10 points ahead of Trump in Wisconsin. All the pundits say that Wisconsin is the pivot state--if Trump doesn't win there, he won't get sufficient delegates to win outright.

But was listening to another analyst last night who said that the polling has been mostly of likely Republican voters and if so, then the independents could skew those numbers. Also Wisconsin is an open primary state in which Democrats could also vote for a GOP candidate which seems more likely than a Republican voting for Hillary or Bernie.

Anyhow who knows how right the pundits have it? I will be watching the Tuesday election returns with interest though.