is it really possible that Donald trump could be president?????

[Bishopsbuddy]

I have zero understanding of American politics and wondered could some one give me an idiots explanation pls. Could trump really win???

Yes you are right. Trump is using the Art of the Deal, he can't be shown to be too favourable to one side because he wants to make a deal, but the giveaway is when he says he is very pro-Israel so he is sending out that message while simultaneously saying he is neutral.

Just saw Rubio on TV, he is now very hostile to Trump calling hima "con man" at every opportunity. It seems that the Republican Establishment will use him to counter Trump. I don't think Rubio and Trump will be able to patch this up. Rubio says that Trump won't win nomination but if he does it will split the party, so it looks like the Establishment will not accept Trump so it is going to be a real fight.

However, Christie has split with the Establishment and endorsed Trump early. Rumours are that Christie wanted to get in first for influence and others will now follow. The Governor of Maine has already followed and backed Trump.

'He also said in December, see Attlanticc that he doubted Israel's commitment to peace'

He is pro Israel, his daughter Ivana converted to Judaism, but he will try to make a deal and therefore he will probably drive a tougher bargain than Rubio or Cruz would make.

The Roasting of Donald Trump will be on the Comedy Channel at 10 pm on Sunday.
A 'roasting' involves a number of comedians , taking the piss out of the subject ( in this case Donald Trump)

Oh, these roastings are excellent. Do you know who the comedian is who is doing the roasting?

There was a brilliant article saying that Trump was a bit like the Jewish comedians Don Rickles and someone else who both "double down" and don't apologise. I looked up Don Rickles and he has some very funny roasts of Sinatra, Dean Martin and Ronald Reagan.

Is is or a more recent programme?

Claig, Want2B,
Sorry to come back to Muslims. .. but he specifically said "All Muslims". Even if temporary - how would immigration enforce this. How would they decide who was / not a Muslim???

SlowFJH, I agree with you. I don't think it is realistic and was just rhetoric to differntiate himself from the pack in the public mind.

But, claig, it's this type of rhetoric that makes him just like, and in a way worse, than the rest of them.

It's his followers that I worry about, really. I worry for the type of person that actually falls for his crap. And somewhat even more for those who realise he's just spouting crap to be elected and are all for him.

Lweji, Trump needs to win the election. He is the outsider that everyone wrote off and thought was a joke. Now they aren't laughing anymore.

The reason his followers follow him is because they understand what is at stake and why the Establishment, the Economist, Davos and all the rest fear him. This is the most important election in decades. The result will determine the future of the entire world. If they beat Trump, they will never be beaten, it will all be over forever.

America is at the point of no return and so is the world. We are on the verge of a financial collapse and they intend to grind the people down and implement their carbon measures etc. Justice Scalia has just died and the Supreme Court is now 4-4. If Trump wins, lots of people will be indicted and will be going to jail. If Trump loses, it is all over.

That is why people back Trump, they know what is at stake and why they are desperate to stop Trump.

SlowFJH, Trump doesn't mean a lot of what he says. He is a populist, he has to appeal directly to the people because it is no use him appealing to the political class and Establishment because they don't like him and are doing everything they can to stop him.

Davos doesn't want him, the Ecnomist doesn't want him, the Guardian doesn't want him, the New York Times doesn't want him, it looks like Murdoch doesn't want him, the Bushes don't want him, the Establishment doesn't want him, former Mexican Presidents don't want him, the Chinese government doesn't want him, the Pope implied he is not Christian.

Trump can't appeal to any of that lot which is why he goes direct to the people and they have placed him in the lead. The Establishment is working out how they will deprive the people of their choice at the Republican Convention using superdelegates and freed up delegates and all the tricks and rules in their book.

Trump is depserate to win because he wants to take the country back. That is why he says some of the things he says, in order to show the people that he is different to the political class that they are rejecting en masse.

As Mistigri rightfully said, the Chris Christie endorsement of Trump shows that Trump isn't really a hard right winger. That is why the Establishment fear Trump because they know that the American people would never vote for a real hard right winger like Cruz who is bound to lose against Clinton. Trump is a threat to the Establishment because he is not a country club conservative faithful to academic dogma, he is a pragmatists and a populist and will draw in votes from independents and Democrats and that is what scares the Establishment stiff because they know that Trump is coming for them and will end their worldwide game and put America first again.

"The Christie-Trump pairing shows how, counter to the mogul’s reputation, he isn’t an outrageous right-winger. Absent his serial violations of political decorum and his advocacy of mass deportation, it would be clearer that Trump is a Northeastern moderate who will likely run as a tell-it-like-it-is pragmatist should he win the nomination.

And he’s potentially just a couple of weeks away from locking in that nomination.

Trump is headed toward a big Super Tuesday next week, when he’ll get more momentum and perhaps a couple more Christie-like endorsements. The Republican establishment may be panicking over his continued strength, but one form of panic is confusion and submission.
...
Aimed directly at Trump’s populist appeal, this tack may bear more fruit than prior complaints that he isn’t serious or conservative enough.

But Trump will fight back like a hellcat — and he now has a prominent wingman who shares his taste for no-holds-barred political combat."

nypost.com/2016/02/26/why-christies-trump-endorsement-is-such-a-yuuuge-deal/

Trump will fight like a hellcat and the Establishment will use every lowdown trick they have to stop him because the future of America and the whole world depends on the outcome.

So, Trump saying he's for the people and against the elites and establishment is the only thing he says that's not rhetoric and just to win the election?

No he is right about Iraq, Syria, Isis, Libya, global trade deals, TPP, climate change, illegal immigration, the export of jobs by design under globalism etc.

He is the antithesis to the global elite's philosophy of screwing the people and intends to end their plans which is why they are all united against him and why the people are flocking behind Trump 2016!

The media is failing to fool the American people in theri attempt to swing them behind the Establishment candidate, Rubio.

"This new poll is utterly devastating for Marco Rubio

A lot can go wrong for Republican elites in the next few weeks of the primary. But the absolute worst-case scenario for them is if Donald Trump racks up a winning streak that culminates with him beating Marco Rubio in Florida.

Well, that's exactly what's on track to happen, according to a newly released poll by Quinnipiac — and it's not even close.

Trump beats Rubio among likely Republican primary voters in Florida 44 percent to 28 percent, the poll shows"

www.vox.com/2016/2/25/11112928/rubio-trump-poll-florida

He may be right (depending on opinions), but he certainly doesn't have the same opinion now as he did then. So, which one is his actual opinion? And if he was so wrong back at the time, can we trust his judgement when it's time to act?
Even if he wasn't a politician then, he must have kept up with the news, if he was contributing his opinion.

I'm not a politician and I did predict when Iraq was invaded that it would end up a big mess with a guerrilla type situation (as it has been), regardless of the rights or wrongs of invading it then.

So, can anyone trust his judgement (without the benefit of hindsight)?
And can anyone trust he believes anything he's saying now?

'he certainly doesn't have the same opinion now as he did then. So, which one is his actual opinion? '

His current opinion because he has learned more about what really went on in the meantime. Trump is not an ideologue, he changes his mind as he finds out more information. He will change again over time if he learns new information on what has really been going on and who was really behind it.

'And if he was so wrong back at the time, can we trust his judgement when it's time to act? '

But he wasn't so wrong. He was against the Iraq War since it started, when the politically correct Blair and the gang were all for it. I trust his judgement but there are others who prefer Clinton and Establishment Rubio.

'Even if he wasn't a politician then, he must have kept up with the news, if he was contributing his opinion. '

He did which is why unlike the rest of the Establishment, Blair and that type, he was against the Iraq War, he wants the 28 redacted pages of the 911 report opened up etc

'I'm not a politician and I did predict when Iraq was invaded that it would end up a big mess with a guerrilla type situation (as it has been), regardless of the rights or wrongs of invading it then'

So did Trump because he was also not a politician and did not stand to gain from it.

'So, can anyone trust his judgement (without the benefit of hindsight)?
And can anyone trust he believes anything he's saying now?'

That is up to the American people in the election. But it is obvious that the Establishment, the Economist, Davos and all the rest of them believe he means what he is saying now which is why they are all united against him.

But he was happy about Iraq, just as long as the US took the oil. (see upthread)

slow There are a couple of things that I know they are doing based on what friends have said and reasons for them havig a hard time getting into the US. Namely, if you are coming from the UK they first look at your travel history to see if you have ever been to an Islamic country. Then they run the same data through other sources to see what religion you identify with. From that they run further checks. They have a good idea about who is coming into the country these days but still have the questioning at the airport.

Also, trump is pro Israel. He has been very clear about that. I'm surprised it has even come up here because it's the one thing he has been very consistent about.

That is wrong. he was against the Iraq War said it was a mess and even called for Bush to be impeached which came up at the previous debate where teh host asked him if he still wanted Bush impeached.

But he said once we were in the war then we had to finish it and win it and we should take the oil to prevent, in this case, Isis getting it in Syria. He said we should bomb the oil and then take it when Obama was not bombing Isis's oil due to the "environmental impact".

The thing about Trump is he knows lots of important people and he gets lots of information and knows what is really going on, not what the media writes is going on. And Trump has the courage and "hide of a rhino" to say it.

Kirsten powers, a Democrat supporter and Fox contributor, was on Fox last night and she said that Hillary would not be able to handle what Trump will do to her because he will say things that no one else would ever dare say. We haven't even started to see the things that Trump will do when he starts telling the truth about what has been going on. That is why the Establlshment is petrified of Trump.

But in 2002 he was in favour (in an interview) of invading and then there's little evidence of his thoughts on it when it actually happened (not even he has found any references to it, despite him publicly voicing his opinions in all directions), and the impeachement call was only in 2008 (well after the war started).

Not sure if we can trust any of his statements about what he thought about at the time.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/13/in-2008-donald-trump-said-george-w-bush-shouldve-been-impeached/

And, apparently, the Clintons were fantastic too. :)

And as for bombing wells, I think Obama was quite right in seeking first other options, considering the environmental and economic impact for the region post conflict.

Want2B
I have a very good friend whose Dad was Pakistani and Mum was English. She has an Islamic name but doesn't practice. Would she be let in?

What about the President of Turkey (a national ally) and the King of Jordan??

Also what do class as a Muslim country? India is a secular democracy but has the second largest Muslim population in the world. The 7/7 bombers were British. How would they have been stopped by a "no Muslims" rule?

'But in 2002 he was in favour (in an interview) of invading'

He was very non-commital in the interview. He was asked and didn't know much about it at the time. Joe Scarborough on MSNBC found an interview before 2003 where Trump said he was against the war before it started. The Establishment have been through everything trying to catch Trump out and it has been alll over US news and Joe Scarborough's find put the Establishment back in their box.

'And, apparently, the Clintons were fantastic too.'

He donated to all of the political class because that is how it works for business, he says that is why they are all in the pockets of the donors. He got along with everyone and that is why Cruz et al say he is not a "real conservative" because he donated to Democrats as well as Republicans.

'And as for bombing wells, I think Obama was quite right in seeking first other options, considering the environmental and economic impact for the region post conflict.'

That is because you don't understand what is really going on with Isis and in Syria. Trump understands it well and understands why the "environmental impact" reasons are used to not bomb terrorist assets that enable them to fund terrorism.