birdog1960

that she's in bed with special interests. so is every other candidate, except perhaps bernie. but I don't see her conspiring with trump. this is a wacko conspiracy theory.

if you truly believe that trump is running for Hillary and doing so very successfully, what does that say about the republican primary electorate? trump doesn't do anything for anyone but himself. he is a textbook narcissist.

unlike you, I prefer reasoned analysis of data. anecdotes are nearly useless. what I hear from an aquaintance that supports trump is a single nearly meaningless data point. multiple data points like this is what have more meaning: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/donald-trump-poll-cnn-orc-national/index.html. and the further analysis of this data into demographics is what I find particularly useful (and what I would immediately examine if I could find the Rasmussen poll showing 19% of dems supporting trump. these aren't guesses. they are estimates. and some are better than others. I refer you to the last prez election for evidence of that. "Republican voters are most sharply divided by education. Among those GOP voters who hold college degrees, the race is a close contest between the top four contenders, with Cruz slightly in front at 22%, Carson and Rubio tied at 19% and Trump at 18%. Among those without college degrees, Trump holds a runaway lead: 46% support the businessman, compared with 12% for Cruz, 11% for Carson and just 8% for Rubio."

geez, basic math and now reading. what must have been your SAT scores? I wrote "rank and file", that by definition,excludes leaders.

not pretending. my guess is the demographics would look similar to republicans that support him. fortunately, it's a much smaller portion of the dem party.

I've not seen those numbers. care to link? i'd be interested in the demographics of that clearly outlying group of deviants. 45% = 45/100 that haven't. it speaks to the current composition of the party. just sayin.

I guess you couldn't translate repugs into republicans because rank and file republicans clearly should be included in measuring the party's opinion on trump. one could argue that it is currently the most important metric.

how's about you link his tweets and original speeches. I heard bits of his stump speech about it in iowa. link a transcript. but I don't think his stance is being generally misrepresented. I sure don't hear him saying that.

some repug leaders have. but 40+ percent of the rank and file still support him and it seems to be growing. what would you say if a poll of muslims showed 40+% approved of extremist branches?

how bout this analogy: repugs failure to convincingly denounce trump is akin to muslim leaders failure to convincingly denounce extremist groups that call themselves muslims.

my ppp colleagues will understand: http://www.innovations.com.au/p/home/home-office/3000-classic-books?dgm_clickid=wgDwYa2MNyG23wW2jFwnvRVEUkXXfyxx1xNVzA0&dgm_cid=1866&dgm_affid=30206&affiliate=AFTA

as a bonus $1 will be given to the maui dog fund or some such thing. ha! also like the also recommended "how to poo at work"- don't let number 2 stop you from being number 1 at work.. this is the stuff you want at these things.

I recently bought a 50 ml bottle for about $10 bucks at a va abc store. could get 2. nobody is going to know about quality. very few people have had it. this was a brand I've seen before. it might be a good conversation piece. here's the brand: http://www.absente.com/

a bottle of absinthe with printed instructions on pouring over ice and sugar or perhaps even including a slotted spoon, sugar and appropriate glass.

maybe not clean and appropriate enough but we were once invited to a dinner party with a "dirty santa" gift exchange. I kinda misunderstood the meaning (it was one of those things where you draw numbers and someone with a later number can steal an already opened present). I brought a copy of the "kama sutra" and a decent cigar, gift wrapped. caused quite a stir and was regifted many times over the years (without the cigar) at the same event. it became more dog eared every year. on second thought, you might want to wait til your second year on the job for that.

these weren't radical proposed social security changes. in fact, changing the retirement age has already been implemented. i'd have supported any of these changes. I must be missing something in the medicare link. I see only that he doesn't believe spending increases were likely to go to zero. says nothing about fundamentally changing or removing this entitlement. neither of these positions would put him in direct conflict with sanders. sanders is clearly more liberal but not very far removed in ideology. they are quantum leaps closer than Rockefeller and trump, for example.

medicare, Medicaid and social security are all socialistic programs and all long championed by mainstream dems including the two you mentioned.

most of the positions I hold have long been tenets of the democrat party even at times when compromise with republicans was common and expected. while the dem party has certainly evolved the repub party has become unrecognizable.

there isn't snowballs chance in hell of finding middle ground with folks like you comprising the republican party. it's almost to the point to where the historical image of the party will need to be reborn under another name. the inmates are running the asylum.

what it should tell you is that a large percentage (40-45%) of the party are mindless idiots. the party and unfortunately, also the country are weaker for them.

watch his republican poll numbers go up regardless.

from the linked fiscal times article: " personality had hurt the party’s image, while just 16 percent said he had helped the party. But among the voters who count the most to Trump right now – meaning Republicans who will vote in the 2016 presidential primaries and caucuses, 43 percent believe that Trump is helping the GOP’s image while 40 percent say he has hurt it." this 40-45% number among republicans keeps showing it's ugly head. it's a group I believe is well represented here on ppp. it's a group that is damaging the republican brand every day and strengthening the democrat brand. strong work.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-call-bar-muslims-u-111500000.html. he's the best thing for dems to happen during a prez election since ross perot. keep propping up those poll numbers. fools...

risk/reward. he's the only elite receiver on the team. the bigger question to me is Why is mcfumbles still on the team when he can't be trusted to return punts and is a backup db.

because I do not believe that blacks and white are anywhere near equally culpable for African slavery. I find that contention ridiculous. here's one opinion on gate's stance: http://socialistworker.org/2010/05/06/why-gates-is-wrong-on-reparations. it seems horowitz' motivations are more transparent and I suspect more prevelant among those that study this issue. both seem to be aligned against slave reparations which have not yet occurred. why gates holds this stance is conjecture. I find gates stance difficult to rationalize and frankly, bizarre. at any rate, if Obama was such a race baiter would he not have pushed harder for reparations? I care. it shows blatant disregard for the scientific method and rational thinking. "enormous success" does not equate to intelligence. now let's turn to Obama. what proof do you have? I've produced proof of his credentials. where is your proof that he has none? and once again, why does it matter if you are not willing to judge conservative candidates on their academic records?