Replies

"Best election cycle ever! If Trump wins the nom all hell is going to break out LOL.

You sound happy about going to hell. Why don't you just say "God damn America."

The same people boasting about Donald's GOP poll numbers are the same people that have nothing intelligent to say about the polls for the general election in which Trump is getting hi lunch handed to him by Hillary. For every 4 votes Trump is getting in those polls, Carson, Cruz and Rubio are pulling 5. That's a huge difference. It isn't as if "people will get to know Trump" and change their minds. He's already extremely well-known to the People Magazine crowd (aka "the Swing Vote") and they find him entertainingly despicable.

I am still waiting for someone to intelligently sketch out a path for Trump to improve enough to win the general election next fall.

If it's Trump against Hillary, she'll win in a landslide, unless she goes to jail, and the Obama administration will never prosecute her.

If it's Trump against Hillary, she'll win in a landslide, unless she goes to jail, and the Obama administration will never prosecute her.

I think the answer to that question is, it’s early. Hillary is really dirty, and that cannot be hid under a bushel forever. Not only Benghazi, but also her sudden wealth.
As to the latter, there is - at least in a civics book sense, a way around the Obama Just Us department. Consider the following facts:

“Liberals” are all in for CFR; Obama loves to whine about the Citizens United decision which limited McCain-Feingold, for example. And SCOTUS upheld it (5-4) on grounds that the loss of First Amendment freedom was (somehow) worth the so-called cleanliness of campaign finance it supposedly provides.

Hillary announced that she and Bill were “dead broke” when they left the WH; now they command a quarter of a billion dollars. A lot of that money came from overseas, and some of it came from foreign governments.

Article 1 Section 9:
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state
Hillary was “holding an office of trust” under the US as senator (2003-2009) and Secretary of State (2009-2013). The Clintons were raking in the dough during that time and, launder it though they might, she was a principal in the partnership which is their marriage, and in the foundations which make those so-called charitable donations to their foundation nominally legit. It is transparently the case that “any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever” covers contributions to a foundation named after Clinton, which includes Hillary as a principal. And whether or not the foundation spent and spends its money on legit charitable operations is beside the point. Money contributed to the foundation cannot evade of any kind whatever. You cannot claim that McCain-Feingold is good law which needs to be better, and simultaneously claim that getting rich from foreign sources, some known to be foreign government sources, in view of seeking the office of President of the United States, is constitutionally legit.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress
Although traditionally (and in accord with Federal law which commits Congress to abide by the statesâ€™ choices in validating the results of the Electoral College), the people of each state vote for their stateâ€™s electors, constitutionally that is not even required at all. Thus, at a minimum, each state has control of the process by which the Electors are selected by the ballot, and SCOTUS has no writ to second guess questions of fairness even were it so inclined.
The conclusion is that each state has the authority, arguably the duty, to enforce against any presidential candidate the constitutional prohibition against accepting anything from foreign governments while being in federal employ. Each state should make it impractical, preferably impossible, for a violator to win its electoral votes. Each state should pass a law creating a cause of action against any presidential candidate, and in a civil suit prove by a mere preponderance of the evidence, that the candidate has been hoovering up illegitimate foreign money. The only penalty would be the inability to win the state’s electoral votes, which would be a civil penalty not requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Which Hillary Clinton has.
If that seems too onerous, you could penalize the miscreant by merely putting her line in the middle of the ballot while her opponent was on Line A. In which case no other candidate for any office would want to be on the same ticket with her . . .