is it really possible that Donald trump could be president????? [Part 2]

[claig]

From now on the race becomes winner take all. If Trump wins Florida on March 15, it is probably all over.

'The Republican Party now has 14 days to stop Trump'

www.vox.com/2016/3/2/11144812/super-tuesday-results-donald-trump-wins

'these electoral process seem a very devil for candidate personal lives - so much energy and money and time. I don't envy them'

You are exactly right. Trump thought very long and hard about it before he did it. Melania, his wife, said go for it. It is the toughest selection process in the world. Ay ear of non-stop speeches, 12 debates so far and the etire world's elite against Trump. The pressure is enormous and left wing agitators and crazies rush him on stage. The system wants to stop him. It is one hell of a thing to do, but Trump has to do it to save America from the path it is currently on under what he calls the "losers" who have destoyed jobs and shipped them abroad. He says "we have to make changes or we're not gonna have a country anymore". He is taking the globalists on and they are in panic and plotting how to stop him.

'I should have read the previous thread'

No need to apologise. No one has got time to read all the threads on this. Anyone can comment at any point about anything.

The Syria thing was on this thread, yesterday I think. But I understand it's difficult to navigate.

Trump is also spending his own millions to do it, which irks him because he likes earning millions, not giving it away. But unlike all the "bought and paid for" candidates, he doesn't want to owe any donors or bankers any favours because he wants to work for the American people and not for them.

Well I thank you both got your courtesy :) it is a both compelling husting and process - I'm learning a lot

MrsFriskers, it really is the greatest show on earth and it hasn't even started yet, Trump hasn't even started on Hillary yet. The world will have witnessed nothing like it.

A few weeks ago, conservative Supreme Court Justice was found dead at a ranch in Texas at a secret society hunting club meeting. Today Obama has selected his nominee to replace him. Some analysts are saying he may not oppose through Obama's climate stuff etc. The Republicans said they would oppose any appointment until after the election, but they may sell out or give in. It is a huge year for America and therefore for the entire world.

Well, I'm not a US voter, but I abhor Mr Trump and what he has not said he stands for. I appreciate he has chutzpah for some, but not for me.

Obama seems to have selected someone neutral or bipartisan. Surely, for the Supreme Court, that should make everyone happy and act as a power balance between the right and left wing judges.

I wonder if the Republican senators want to risk a possible Hillary nomination, or, possibly worse, a Trump nomination.

I hope Obama is damage limiting and neutral in a way, in as much as he can before he leaves office - I always wondered if a president is even more neutered in the run up to an election? Or does BAU carry on as normal?

That's a silly question, as I'm sure scheduled acts are still being debated and passed, but wondered if there was a an eye by the legislature on the future landscape

I think conventionally the last year of an eight year term isn't the time for major legislative projects ...

OTOH there is precedent for nomimating new Supreme Court justices in the final year of a presidential term (Reagan did it) and it seems to be a clear requirement of the constitution at any time in a presidency. So objectively, Obama is correct to make the nomination, and politically astute to nominate a centrist candidate.

I don't understand what the Republicans have to gain by refusing to consider the nomination of a consensus candidate, who has received Republican backing in the past, and who senior republicans are on record as considering an intelligent and cautious jurist. There's no guarantee that a Clinton, or even Trump, nominee would be more pleasing to republicans generally.

It makes them look childish and obstructive at a time when public confidence in American political institutions is at an all time low. In fact there might be some political mileage for Trump in supporting this nomination!

I'd add in hysterical misti and say unfortunately, they've looked that way for some time.

Well the proposal to establish a database tracking Muslims in the US is a Trumpian proposal Lweji , so I mentioned it as I assumed it was something you were holding against him. Since you (or perhaps it was OhYOuBadKitten) called him Anti-Islamic..He is, probably, but no more than anyone else on offer...

This is getting rather tedious now not to mention time consuming -- but I will, rather pointlessly, say it one last time: The Anti - Trumpers out there deplore his proposal to discriminate against Muslim immigrants and travellers to the US, yet immigration laws have been selecting certain religious groups and treating them more favourably for years now. The Lautenberg Amendment,of 1989, gave religious groups in the USSR including Jews, some Christians, etc., presumptive refugee status unavailable to non-believers or state-sanctioned religious groups that weren't persecuted. So we see here when the principle of singling out certain religious groups was first established, and if we apply the principle consistently then Trump’s proposal to single out Muslims for unfavourable treatment is entirely in line with this precedent. All the hooting and howling about Trump's proposals are down to the media out to destroy him - IMO.

As for 'Chutzpah', let's take the current refugees crisis, the most pressing humanitarian issue of our time. It seems to me, the only one way to get to the root of this problem, is: By staying the f**k out of the Middle East. Stop overthrowing regimes we don’t like and stop trying to police the world. Trump is the only one with the Chutzpah to say this, and I agree with him.

so I mentioned it as I assumed it was something you were holding against him
Since it was not upon discussion at the time and you pulled it out of thin air to call me ignorant when I was discussing something else entirely different, I suppose it applies in this instance what they say about the word assume that when you use it, it makes an ass of u and me.

say it one last time: The Anti - Trumpers out there deplore his proposal to discriminate against Muslim immigrants and travellers to the US, yet immigration laws have been selecting certain religious groups and treating them more favourably for years now.

Surely even you understand the difference between negative and positive discrimination. And the difference between granting refugee status and normal immigration/people movement.

Olivia I don't really understand how you equate favourable treatment to some categories of refugees in the past to banning all Muslims entering the states now

olivia just tell us how, in practice, the U.S. is going to keep foreign Muslims out, given that many Muslims come from countries where people hold a variety of beliefs, or none at all, and people's religion is rarely identified on their papers (because, y'know, in civilised countries that sort of thing went out of fashion in 1945).

How is Trump going to refuse entrance to a French or Belgian muslim while letting a French businessman in? Hint: it's often impossible to distinguish a tanned North african muslim from a tanned Christian of southern european extraction unless they choose to wear Muslim dress.

And once you've done that, explain to us why anyone who isn't a racist and a bigot would think this might be a good thing.

"yet immigration laws have been selecting certain religious groups and treating them more favourably for years now. The Lautenberg Amendment,of 1989, gave religious groups in the USSR including Jews, some Christians, etc., presumptive refugee status unavailable to non-believers or state-sanctioned religious groups that weren't persecuted."

The important word there is prosecuted. Countries recognize groups that are prosecuted in their own countries because of their religion, race etc and offer them safe haven as refugees.

That is not the same thing as discriminating against people on the base of their religion.

You are digging your own proverbial hole by mentioning this refugee status issue, which illustrates that US knows discriminating against a religious group is a bad thing, since it accepts refugees on the basis of it.

"So we see here when the principle of singling out certain religious groups was first established"

... to protect them against discrimination such as proposed by Trump in their own countries.

It is baffling that you can't see this.

So presumably the USA under Trump would no longer be able to host any international football or sports tournaments, or host state ballets or operas from largely Islamic countries such as Uzbekistan, for fear of inclusion of a Muslim?

And there are people who think this is a good idea??

Yeah, that'll work.

And of course it's all fantasy since recognizing someone's religion is impossible unless they have identifiable names or recognizable clothing.

This is not theoretical, btw: There are several Muslims just in my own immediate family with European passports of various countries, and non-Muslim names & surnames.

It makes them look childish and obstructive

Possibly why the selection for presidential nomination is so dire.
Is this what the Republican party is now? Maybe it has always been...

Can you imagine Trump trying to get his head around the ethnic diversity of Turkmenistan? It'd be like Palin on acid.

Liney - Not just sports tournaments but conferences, scientific collaborations, guest lecturers, etc.

A major strength of the US has been that it was able to lure the best and brightest from around the world, as students and successful professionals. That has been in the decrease for a while now as the anti-foreigner rhetoric has gained traction and this proposed Muslim-banning will be another nail in the coffin on that front.

I was chatting with someone yesterday who explained to me how MIT was very involved with France.
Great idea to hinder a hub of technological development.

And bye bye to tours from many of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees like Cat Stevens (Yusuf).