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

I'm told that the UK is now the hub of bioscience innovation, not the US, since the latter banned stem cell research from embryos.

I did a research paper on the fall of several empires many moons ago. One important characteristic of an empire in decline is closing itself off to scientific/technological advancements - e.g. Ottoman Empire which shunned the printing press because it was a heathen invention. That didn't go too well for them.

I'm not surprised when Creationism is taught as a scientific alternative to Evolution.

Certainly, the US needs to reinvent themselves in the international scene but isolationism is probably the worst avenue. The US has benefited hugely from immigration, even from nations considered to be a danger, such as when they took in scientists from nazi Germany. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

Embryonic stem cell research is not banned in the US. There have been restrictions on federal funding, but those have lessened in recent years. A small minority of states have enacted laws against it, but other states, like California, actively support it.

You are right - I wasn't specific enough. It's not a blanket ban and it's not in all states, but there are bans in effect re destruction of embryos for research in some states, and Obama's executive order allowing Federal funds for embryonic stem cell research is only a few years old.

For the past 20 years, stem cell researchers in the US have faced small-minded religion-based obstacles in the way of scientific research. Many have fled to California or outside the US. Scientists from around the world who would have thought of moving to the US because it was the best place for cutting edge science have chosen other places to continue their research. This is the trend I was told about by a scientist who has chosen the US over the US.

Research, like money, doesn't like restrictions and tend to flow to freer & more liberal places.

There are huge restrictions on stem cell research and it's incredibly frustrating. Our son has a hearing problem. At 2 we extracted stem cells up in Canada. They are very close to being able to create a solution to his particular hearing issue of damaged tubes that are too short.

When we were attending our appointment there was a family there whose little boy was seriously sick with cancer. They were donating stem cells for research purposes and the scientists were optimistic that they could develop them into new organs to replace the ones he had that are going to fail through treatment and/or cancer.

I don't know what the future holds for stem cell research but for the money we spent we have a hope that our son, and others like him, will have normal hearing one day in the future.

I agree that the restrictions are ridiculous. They are fueled by the influence of the religious right, whose strength may be lessening nationally, but who still hold sway over legislators in many of the red states.

Well, there goes the getting along with Putin well out of the window.
news.sky.com/story/1661623/kremlin-says-trumps-video-demonises-russia

"Clearly, for Trump and his team, being seen to be too close to Russia, to Vladimir Putin, they have twigged that's an electoral liability and they're trying to move back somewhat."

It's juts politics, it's just Trump's strategy to win. remember he doesn't mean half the things he says. He is playing the Establishment like a fiddle.

He has got the world financial elite petrified. He won't follow orders. He is going to change the world and they don't know what to do.

"Trump Presidency Is a Global Threat, Economist Intelligence Unit Warns"

www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-presidency-global-threat-economist-intelligence-unit-warns-n540416

He won't listen to their think tanks, he won'tbtake orders from the wonks and teenage whizzkids, he knows what he is going to do

"Trump's top foreign policy advisor? 'I'm speaking with myself'

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, who has long shied away from naming any foreign policy advisors, suggested Wednesday that he was his own top consultant on the issue.

"I'm speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain, and I've said a lot of things," Trump said during a telephone interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

Trump pointed to his 2000 book, where he made a reference to Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"I know what I'm doing, and I listen to a lot of people, I talk to a lot of people, and at the appropriate time I'll tell you who the people are," Trump said.
"But I speak to a lot of people, but my primary consultant is myself, and I have a good instinct for this stuff,” he added."

thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/273197-trumps-top-foreign-policy-advisor-im-speaking-with-myself

He can't be bullied, he can't be bought, they can't tell him what to do. He will finish Isis within weeks.

Or how to talk in slogans.

Remember, Trump says "politicians are all talk, no action". The reason they are petrified of him is because he will be action and he won't listen to the talk of their wonks and whizzkids. He is going "to get the job done" and done very, very quickly. Blair is "anxious" and the global elite is petrified.

But surely, if he does want to be elected and get along with Putin, it's not a very good idea to poke the bear even before getting elected.

It's just politics, it's just strategy to show Hillary as weak and Trump as strong. Trump is playing the media and the wonks like a fiddle. They are running out of teenage whizzkids to try and stop him.

I think the video is pretty childish, but then I suppose it reaches the intended audience.

It's humorous and people will laugh

Trump's key weapon in the whole campaign is humour. Trump has got the people laughing which is why lots of them are on his side. Hillary hasn't got that type of humour, she is a wonk, so she will struggle against Trump.

Still childish. Like this. Which I considered earlier posting but then thought it was too puerile. Oh, well, nothing is too much for Trump.

Yes that is childish, a left wing desperate teenage whizzkid attempt to try to dent Trump. Nothing is working for them, they are at a loss of what to do and the word is that Blair is "anxious".

How is the Trump video, then, not "a Trump wing desperate teenage 5 year old whizzkid attempt to try to dent Hillary."?

It may make Trumpites laugh, but anyone with two brain cells?

Sorry, should have completed the sentence:
It may make Trumpites laugh, but anyone with two brain cells think Trump is preferable to Hillary?

Because Hillary is desperate and unpopular, so she related the story about the barking dog at one of her rallies to try and get a little bit of media attention which Trump was dominating and because she wanted to appear as having a sense of humour in order to appeal to the people.

So Trump's team has used her barking against her to show Putin laughing at it and to get the American people laughing at it in order to portray her as ineffectual against Putin while implicitly implying that Trump is different and will "Make America Great Again". The more it is played by Trump's team, the more the message will get through to the people.

The full video of Hillary barking is actually funny for a different reason. Context is everything.

How is Hillary desperate and unpopular?

She's clearly beating Bernie for nomination
and Trump in the polls.
www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Wednesday, March 9
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Clinton 51, Trump 38 Clinton +13
Wednesday, March 2
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton Rasmussen Reports Clinton 41, Trump 36 Clinton +5
Tuesday, March 1
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton CNN/ORC Clinton 52, Trump 44 Clinton +8

I really do not like HC. She is everything that is wrong with politics and the western world. The real problem is that Trump isn't the answer. Neither are Cruz or Kasich. For a while the only one who has looked like the best option is Kasich.

WRT Trump, I can't bring myself to vote for him since he hired Sarah Palin to campaign with him. She should be allowed to sink into obscurity. Sadly I think she will be the muppet in 3 months saying 'Trump doesn't hate women. He hired me.' Quite frankly she has been available for purchase for rather a long time.

The reasons HC is liked are simple. HC is riding on her DHs coat tails and has done for the whole of her political career. She really screwed up over Bengazi and her email server issues stink to high heaven. There are other female politicians who have worked their way up under their own steam. Elizabeth Warren is one such politician but there are others too.

Others disagree with me but I can't support a spouse who stands by their OH sexually harassing their employees. Bill Clinton paid plenty of women to keep quiet. I believe Paula Jones. I also strongly disagree with him taking advantage of Monica Lewinsky. Her whole life has been ruined by the Clintons. She was 19 years old and he should have known better. I'm married to man about to turn 40. If he played around with a 19 year old like Bill Clinton did, I would be serving divorce papers. I wouldnt think of staying with him for a moment. She might have been over the age of consent but she was very young/ naive and he used his position to take advantage of her. He should have known better and said 'No'. I'm 35 and my view on this has actually shifted more now that I am married and have a young daughter. If my DH came out with the cigar excuse saying he never had sexual relations with a girl it would seal the deal in terms of divorce being the only option.

As nominees go, both Clinton and (especially) Trump have relatively high unfavourability ratings.

The difference is that Clinton doesn't excite the same obsessive support among her supporters as Trump and Sanders do. It makes it hard to make judgements about how relatively popular they are, because both Trump and Sanders have a base of rabid supporters who drown out everything and everyone else, and who are totally unrealistic about the level of support their candidate really has. I see posts from a couple of a Sanders-supporting groups on FB and they are convinced that he's on track for the nomination.

The other difference is that Clinton is a woman, and a lot of the loudest Bernie supporters are young, white and have some quite dodgy artitudes towards women (although they would not admit it, and possibly don't even realise). This group also, incidentally, has shocking attitudes towards black and Hispanic HRC supporters who apparently aren't sophisticated enough to vote in their own interests.

It's a bit like trying to judge who's ahead in the UK referendum - if you judged support by the amount of noise and the inches of newsprint, the leave campaign would be heading for a landslide, when polls put the two sides as relatively even with a large percentage of undecideds.