Let's think outside the box here
shouldve taken that bet
how you like me now
don't be surprised if it ends up like Dr. Paul who should have won New Hampshire and Nevada last year and placed 2nd in South Carolina
laughin my ass off donalds gonna get it done
where's the genious that wanted to bet 10 grand that he wouldnt finish in the top 3,is that bet still available?
The Establishment is backing Rubio now... this thing is far from over
its a democracy the people vote and the only reason they are backing junior is cuz he sold out his soul to be one of the good ole boys and smoke cigars and drink brandy with the lobbyists who run DC(the establishment) and that is why they hate trump and cruz they cant be bought..You should be happy about this Dirty you hate big govt and they need a new sherriff in town
It sure is entertaining
Dirty;n631945 wrote: The Establishment is backing Rubio now... this thing is far from over
Well, at least one part of the establishment has given up on Rubio. Even after some cigar-filled back-room deal making.
More Bad News for Marco Rubio: He Just Lost the Support of Fox News By Gabriel Sherman
Cheer up â€” things will get better. (Actually, they won't.) Photo: Erik S. Lesser/epa/Corbis In his role as the donor class's darling, Marco Rubio has enjoyed support from the Republicans' media arm, Fox News. Throughout the primary, Fox provided Rubio with friendly interviews and key bookings, including the first prime-time response to Barack Obama's Oval Office address on ISIS. Many of the network's top pundits, including Stephen Hayes and Charles Krauthammer, have been enthusiastic boosters. Bill Sammon, Fox's Washington managing editor, is the father of Rubio's communications director, Brooke Sammon.
But this alliance now seems to be over. According to three Fox sources, Fox chief Roger Ailes has told people he's lost confidence in Rubio's ability to win. "We're finished with Rubio," Ailes recently told a Fox host. "We can't do the Rubio thing anymore."
Ailes was already concerned about Rubio's lackluster performance in GOP primaries and caucuses, winning only one contest among the 15 that have been held. But the more proximate cause for the flip was an embarrassing New York Times article revealing that Rubio and Ailes had a secret dinner meeting in 2013 during which the Florida senator successfully lobbied the Fox News chief to throw his support behind the "Gang of 8" comprehensive immigration-reform bill. "Roger hates seeing his name in print," a longtime Ailes associate told me. "He was appalled the dinner was reported," the source said.
Already, there are on-air signs that Fox's attitude toward Rubio has cooled. This morning, anchor Martha MacCallum grilled Rubio about his poor Super Tuesday performance. "Is that a viable excuse at this point?" she asked, when he tried spinning his second-place finish in Virginia.
Fox's corporate support of Rubio has also been a growing source of tension with the network's more conservative talent. Sean Hannity was furious that the Times article reported how he went along with Rubio's immigration proposal. During an interview with Trump on Monday, Hannity barely defended Fox while Trump trashed Rubio backers like Hayes. "He shouldn't be on the air," Trump said. The best Hannity could muster was to change the subject. "Have you ever watched MSNBC?" he said. "They suck."
Ailes is now back to searching for a candidate the channel can rally behind. "He's thinking, What do we do about the whole damn thing?" one of the news executive's friends said.
Fox News spokesperson Irena Briganti did not return a call for comment.
He could still do a stand up routine at the Dunes in Vegas,Wait a minute I think they knocked that down years ago,Oh well there are plenty of bartending jobs in Florida like his dad,maybe he can work at mar-a.lago for Trump,and if the they dont need bartenders maybe his mom can teach him to clean toilets.
Yeah frankie, they criticize Trump for "hating" minorities.
Then, in the very next breath, they criticize Trump for hiring minorities.
He has disavowed David Duke a million times in the past. Yet, all last week all we heard was how he failed to do it on the liberal Sunday show.
Yes, Trump is a liar. Hillary is a bigger liar. Hard to find a politician who is not a liar. ( Cruz seems like a straight talker, but is financed by special interest. I would be all for Cruz if I didn't have this hope that Trump will actually shake up Washington. The Republican Party deserves whatever happens. It is just too bad the establishment democrats can't get what they deserve.)
So, the democrats keep pointing out that Trump's positions today are not what they were previously. So what? When these professional politicians get into office, they don't do what they promised on the campaign trail anyway.
I just found this article that shows how the liberals think. I know some people think that merely quoting Mussolini or Hitler is somehow associating the bad acts of the quotee with the quoter, but I will quote this article about Hitler and hope that those people won't accuse me of sympathizing with Hitler.
Its a long article, but at the end the reporter for the Times lets us know the liberal attitude towards politicians and the truth.
( "You can't expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-Semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you are leading them."
The New York Times' first article about Hitler's rise is absolutely stunning
Adolf Hitler, circa 1922. (Imagno/Getty Images)
On November 21, 1922, the New York Times published its very first article about Adolf Hitler. It's an incredible read â€” especially its assertion that "Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so violent or genuine as it sounded." This attitude was, apparently, widespread among Germans at the time; many of them saw Hitler's anti-Semitism as a ploy for votes among the German masses.
Times correspondent Cyril Brown spendsmost of the piece documenting the factors behind Hitler's early rise in Bavaria, Germany, including his oratorical skills. For example: "He exerts an uncanny control over audiences, possessing the remarkable ability to not only rouse his hearers to a fighting pitch of fury, but at will turn right around and reduce the same audience to docile coolness."
But the really extraordinary part of the article is the three paragraphs on anti-Semitism. Brown acknowledges Hitler's vicious anti-Semitism as the core of Hitler's appeal â€” and notes the terrified Jewish community was fleeing from him â€” but goes on to dismiss it as a play to satiate the rubes (bolding mine): He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself just what he wants to accomplish. The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. His followers are nicknamed the "Hakenkreuzler." So violent are Hitler's fulminations against the Jews that a number of prominent Jewish citizens are reported to have sought safe asylums in the Bavarian highlands, easily reached by fast motor cars, whence they could hurry their women and children when forewarned of an anti-Semitic St. Bartholomew's night.
But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.
A sophisticated politician credited Hitler with peculiar political cleverness for laying emphasis and over-emphasis on anti-Semitism, saying: "You can't expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-Semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them." Now, Brown's sources in all likelihood did tell him that Hitler's anti-Semitism was for show. That was a popular opinion during Nazism's early days. But that speaks to how unprepared polite German society was for a movement as sincerely, radically violent as Hitler's to take power.
We have a felon and a commie on the Left Running... a Legislate in Jaysoos's name and eat boogers in the Middle of the debate nutjob, and a Leftwing Democratic Oligarchist on the Right, and a Hispanic who has denounced his heritage and believes in the NSA, spying, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, etc... ..... how anyone can support any of these parties is beyond me.