Who would you vote if the 2016 election is Trump vs. Sanders

[Valmy]

BB finds a pun unfunny!

[DGuller]

Is Trump beyond the Palin?

I'm looking forward to an Hillaryous campaign.

Nothing will trump that, true.

Using Trump for trump isn't a pun, and isn't remotely funny.

Oh, no, the bad quality of puns is making Beeb fiorious!

[Eddie Teach]

Which candidate will Cruz to victory?

[mongers]

Is Trump beyond the Palin?

I'm looking forward to an Hillaryous campaign.

Nothing will trump that, true.

Using Trump for trump isn't a pun, and isn't remotely funny.

Oh, no, the bad quality of puns is making Beeb fiorious!

[Read all about it]

BB Takes A Dump On A Trump Punt Pun.

[/Read all about it]

[Martinus]

Is Trump beyond the Palin?

I'm looking forward to an Hillaryous campaign.

Nothing will trump that, true.

Using Trump for trump isn't a pun, and isn't remotely funny.

Did DGuller's pun Rubio the wrong way?

[Admiral Yi]

[I can't help but think that a lot of the press and at least some of his followers just have a morbid curiosity in seeing how far this will go and how bad the crash will be.  Prediction:  There will be a bimbo on the side and some financial irregularities which will be revealed that will result in him going completely bonkers on the air.

His entire public persona is built on the aquisiton of bimbos.  His comment about Princess Diana's death was "I wish I had dated her."   He's on record as saying he would bang his daughter if she weren't his daughter.

I similarly doubt that we're going to discover that he hasn't been paying his taxes for the last 5 years.

He'll fail because his negatives are too high.

[Eddie Teach]

Is Trump beyond the Palin?

I'm looking forward to an Hillaryous campaign.

Nothing will trump that, true.

Using Trump for trump isn't a pun, and isn't remotely funny.

Did DGuller's pun Rubio the wrong way?

He's just Biden his time 'til he thinks of a better one.

[Razgovory]

[I can't help but think that a lot of the press and at least some of his followers just have a morbid curiosity in seeing how far this will go and how bad the crash will be.  Prediction:  There will be a bimbo on the side and some financial irregularities which will be revealed that will result in him going completely bonkers on the air.

His entire public persona is built on the aquisiton of bimbos.  His comment about Princess Diana's death was "I wish I had dated her."   He's on record as saying he would bang his daughter if she weren't his daughter.

I similarly doubt that we're going to discover that he hasn't been paying his taxes for the last 5 years.

He'll fail because his negatives are too high.

You have more faith in the people in the real estate business then I do.

[Barrister]

[I can't help but think that a lot of the press and at least some of his followers just have a morbid curiosity in seeing how far this will go and how bad the crash will be.  Prediction:  There will be a bimbo on the side and some financial irregularities which will be revealed that will result in him going completely bonkers on the air.

His entire public persona is built on the aquisiton of bimbos.  His comment about Princess Diana's death was "I wish I had dated her."   He's on record as saying he would bang his daughter if she weren't his daughter.

I similarly doubt that we're going to discover that he hasn't been paying his taxes for the last 5 years.

He'll fail because his negatives are too high.

My thought was "how many more financial irregularities does Trump need to have"?

How many businesses have gone bankrupt?  And while Trump liked to spin that as "reorganization", a bankruptcy means that creditors don't get paid.  Trump's hasn't paid an awful lot of creditors out there.

[alfred russel]

The wild thing about Trump is he has been in the bullshit real estate investor "education" schemes that rip off the rubes. I used to assume he did it because he was broke and needed cash. But while he probably isn't worth nearly as much as he says he is, his financial disclosure seems to indicate he is truly wealthy.

So I'm not sure why he did it. I guess because he is totally obsessed with making money and getting attention, and the classes were a way to get both, even in limited quantities.

[Razgovory]

My thought was "how many more financial irregularities does Trump need to have"?

How many businesses have gone bankrupt?  And while Trump liked to spin that as "reorganization", a bankruptcy means that creditors don't get paid.  Trump's hasn't paid an awful lot of creditors out there.

Yeah, he got real defensive about that.  Also I imagine, "I bilked the government in a quasi-legal way", isn't going to fly.

Le secret des grandes fortunes sans cause apparente est un crime oublié, parce qu'il a été proprement fait.

[DGuller]

I really don't understand the bankruptcy argument against Trump.  That is a possibility in business, that's the whole reason we have limited liability corporations.  There is a reason that corporate bonds pay more than federal treasuries.  As long as you're not pulling stunts like embezzling borrowed money with excessive dividends, there is really no moral or ethical argument against Trump's bankruptcies.

[jimmy olsen]

The Trumpmentom is happening!

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_08/waking_up_with_the_republican057366.php

August 31, 2015 9:29 AM
Waking Up With the Republican Establishment Nightmare
By Ed Kilgore

The appearance of an Ann Selzer Iowa Poll (cosponsored by the Des Moines Register and Bloomberg Politics) over the weekend must have felt for Establishment Republicans like the cliched moment in cheesy fiction where one wakes up from a nightmare only to realize it's real. It's helpful to understand that Selzer's polls represent sort of the gold standard of state polling—up there with California's Field Poll and the Marquette Law School polls in Wisconsin. They are difficult to write off as outliers.

So the Iowa Poll's confirmation of the upside-down nature of the GOP presidential contest, with the assumed front-runners badly trailing people who have never accomplished a thing in politics, has to be pretty shocking to people who are in denial about it all. As will be widely noted, the three candidates who have never held elected office—Trump, Carson and Fiorina—together come in at 46% in the horse race portion of the Iowa Poll, while the early presumed front-runners—Walker, Bush and Rubio—pull a booming 20%. Do second-place preferences hide some big potential turnaround for the former big boys? Nope: Trump, Carson and Fiorina together get 34% as second choices, while Walker, Bush and Rubio get 21%.

How about the favorable-unfavorable ratios? Reflecting other polls, the single most shocking change since the last Iowa Poll in May is Trump's improvement in favorability ratios from 27/63 to 61/35. I mean, that just doesn't happen, but it did.

Ben Carson's favorability ratio is at a near unanimous 79/8, which makes you wonder if people are really listening to the Crazy beneath his happy-talk about unity and common sense. If they are, that's scary.

Perhaps the most fascinating number, however, is Scott Walker's favorability ratio of 71/15, about the same as when he was killing it in Iowa earlier this year. He's now in something of the same boat as Rubio, Mr. High Favorability, Low Horse Race (67/20 in this poll, tied for fifth in the preference vote with Jeb Bush). And then there's Bush, whose favorability ratio in Iowa remains underwater (40/45), as does that of once-terrifying Rand Paul (39/49) and the desperately floundering Chris Christie (29/59) and RINO pariah Lindsey Graham (15/59).

One other set of numbers for the Republicans is worth noting: asked if any of the candidates outside their first and second preferences are people they could never support, likely caucusgoers expressed significantly more antipathy to John Kasich (40% could never support him) and Jeb Bush (39%) than to Donald Trump (29%) or Ted Cruz (24%).

Yeah, it's still early, and of course, in Iowa grassroots organization matters more than popularity. Moreover, as Nancy LeTourneau pointed out yesterday, the "silly season" of August is about to be replaced by a September full of real news and actual drama in Washington. September will not be "about" Donald Trump.

But I dunno: two big September issues, the Iran Nuclear Deal and the fight over Planned Parenthood funding, are almost certainly going to produce fresh evidence of the inability of Republicans in Congress to "keep their promises" to the conservative activist rank-and-file of the GOP, the fuel for the "outsider" surge in the GOP presidential field. The next debates, on September 16, will come right before that new proof Establishment impotence begins to sink in. If somebody other than Trump's going to shake up the field again, it needs to start happening then. I'd say September looks like Cruz Country.

[Razgovory]

I really don't understand the bankruptcy argument against Trump.  That is a possibility in business, that's the whole reason we have limited liability corporations.  There is a reason that corporate bonds pay more than federal treasuries.  As long as you're not pulling stunts like embezzling borrowed money with excessive dividends, there is really no moral or ethical argument against Trump's bankruptcies.

It makes sense if you conflate debts held by private actors (like families and businesses), and public debt and see debt as a whole as a moral failing.  Since Trump's constituency is made up of people who believe that running a business is like running a government (and thus are the people who conflate the types of debt), then it's bound to become a serious problem.

[mongers]

Haven't been paying much attention to US/international news, so only today have I become aware of the Bernie Sanders story.