I was right: President Elect Trump

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 5, 2016 13:56:55 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Aug 5, 2016 11:58:49 GMT -5 Icelandic Woman said:

Just when you think this vile man can't sink any lower he outdoes himself and sinks to the lowest level possible.
Nobody WANTS a Purple Heart. Does he even know what a Purple Heart is awarded for in that YUUGGEE smart brain of his? He is a despicable human being.

I can`t believe he had the temerity to actually accept this Purple Heart from a veteran.
Then added insult to injury by saying "What an easy way to get a Purple Heart!"

The man has no shame. None.

Put yourself in his shoes- set aside the politics. That's an awkward situation to be in.

[Opti]

Aug 5, 2016 19:42:11 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 5, 2016 13:56:55 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

I can`t believe he had the temerity to actually accept this Purple Heart from a veteran.
Then added insult to injury by saying "What an easy way to get a Purple Heart!"

The man has no shame. None.

Put yourself in his shoes- set aside the politics. That's an awkward situation to be in.

I think Trump could have said something much better, but I think refusing to take the purple heart would have insulted the person who offered it.

[Icelandic Woman]

Aug 5, 2016 19:42:11 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 5, 2016 13:56:55 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

I can`t believe he had the temerity to actually accept this Purple Heart from a veteran.
Then added insult to injury by saying "What an easy way to get a Purple Heart!"

The man has no shame. None.

Put yourself in his shoes- set aside the politics. That's an awkward situation to be in.

Putting politics aside let's look at the human respectful side.

What he should have said was "Thank you so much I am honored that you think enough of me to offer me this medal but it was awarded to you for your sacrifice and service to our country and it really belongs with you."

But has no respectful side he only has his enormous ego and everything is always about him.

You can make all the excuses you want for him but it doesn't change the fact that there is no excuse for the things he says and does. Trump is all about Trump.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 5, 2016 13:33:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 5, 2016 8:22:51 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

The party leadership is terrified. They are afraid that Trump will not only lose, but that the losses may go down ticket, to their Senate and House seats that may be vulnerable. But they are also afraid that upsetting the cart might make it even worse.


They are like deer in the headlights right now.  Terrified.

there is considerably momentum developing in that direction- and partially it is due to Obama, who is now at 50+% approval.  it is hard to imagine the GOP retaining the Senate, as things stand today.

After the Khan debacle- and let's be clear: it was a debacle for Hillary; and the Iran airlifted pallets of cash ransom payment debacle-- don't look for the "bounce"-- which I've already documented to be completely manufactured- to develop into "momentum". This little bit of conventional wisdom right here- Trump loses in a landslide, and down-ticket losses follow- is never. Going. To. Happen.

Donald Trump is going to win in an historic landslide.

I don't think Trump is Reagan- that's not what I'm saying. But there are parallels in the theory of the election, and the pattern of support.  Reagan was down 5 points to the incumbent, Jimmy Carter, with 30 days to go.  Reagan won by 10 points, not 5 points. He won 489 electoral votes to 49 for Carter.

[Opti]

Aug 5, 2016 19:57:27 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 5, 2016 13:33:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

there is considerably momentum developing in that direction- and partially it is due to Obama, who is now at 50+% approval.  it is hard to imagine the GOP retaining the Senate, as things stand today.

After the Khan debacle- and let's be clear: it was a debacle for Hillary; and the Iran airlifted pallets of cash ransom payment debacle-- don't look for the "bounce"-- which I've already documented to be completely manufactured- to develop into "momentum". This little bit of conventional wisdom right here- Trump loses in a landslide, and down-ticket losses follow- is never. Going. To. Happen.

Donald Trump is going to win in an historic landslide.

I don't think Trump is Reagan- that's not what I'm saying. But there are parallels in the theory of the election, and the pattern of support.  Reagan was down 5 points to the incumbent, Jimmy Carter, with 30 days to go.  Reagan won by 10 points, not 5 points. He won 489 electoral votes to 49 for Carter.

Trump's feud with Khan is judged by most as a plus to Hillary. Sure the hit pieces with their shaky theories and untruths probably solidified angst against Muslims in Trump supporters but probably didn't help with other voters. And yeah I suppose you all can lie about payments we owe Iran which ended up ill-timed, but life is what it is. If its ransom payments, well perhaps from 1979.

I don't know what's going to happen and I don't like making predictions. I don't see a landslide for Trump. I have a feeling his self destructive streak will get bigger as time goes on.

[billisonboard]

Aug 5, 2016 19:38:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Anyone care to explain how it is possible that Trump is leading with unaffiliated (voters not affiliated with any party) voters 41% to 29% after Hillary led by 5% last week?

I'll tell you how: they have no clue what's happening out there.

In the meantime, some WaPo guy named Robert Costa (not to be confused with Bob Costas) let slip the "Monster Vote" to a VERY nervous Charlie Rose.

RUSH: Now Robert Costa used to be a reporter at National Review. He was so admired by the Washington Post they, hired him away. He's now a reporter on the presidential campaign. He was on Charlie Rose last night. Charlie Rose said, "How deep and wide is the movement that Trump has...?" How long can it last?

COSTA: It's wider than any party. I mean, it includes some Bernie Sanders supporters. It includes some libertarians. The most important voter in this movement, uh, when I travel around the country, is the previously disengaged voter. They're almost a nonpartisan voter, but they've given up not just on the political process, but they've disengaged from civic society. They don't really follow politics. If that's a real coherent voting block, then Trump -- regardless of the polls -- will have a shot in November -- and regardless of all the mistakes -- because that's a huge block. There's so much of this country that rarely, if ever, votes, and if -- for some reason -- they come to the polls in droves, that changes everything.

RUSH: Charlie is now concerned. Charlie says, "What's your best evidence that Trump can actually pull this out?"

COSTA: I'm seeing it everywhere I go, people are just frustrated with the country at large, not just with a specific party. And Trump may be the benefit of that, but he's not entirely making an overture to them in a straightforward way every day. He's a symbol of someone who’s an outsider, an interloper, someone who’s against the establishment and the elite class, however people want to describe it.

RUSH: Okay, so numbers that go along here with Mr. Robert Costa's point. Voter turnout in 2008 it was 62.3 percent. In 2012, it was 57.5 percent. So five percent dip in voter turnout. Almost half the people in the country who could vote don't. Or in 2012 didn't. Probably about 45 percent who could vote didn't. If they show up, if Trump gets a fraction of them, it would totally upend every formula everybody has out there. These people are not polled. And also keep in this mind, and I never see anybody dispute this. Let me just ask you to see if you recall. The latest number in whatever poll you want to take, the number is pretty consistent poll to poll, the percentage of America people who think the country is headed in the wrong direction, what's the number? It's 70.



It is 70 percent.

Those people I thought would turn out for Romney that never showed up? They're wide awake. They're going to be there.

We have to hope they are wide awake. That would preclude them voting for Donald Trump.

[Deleted]

Let's be clear... Just because you use the phrase, let's be clear, before a statement, does not make that statement of opinion any more a fact...

[weltschmerz]

Aug 5, 2016 19:44:55 GMT -5 Opti said:

Aug 5, 2016 19:42:11 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Put yourself in his shoes- set aside the politics. That's an awkward situation to be in.

I think Trump could have said something much better, but I think refusing to take the purple heart would have insulted the person who offered it.

He could have said "I couldn't possibly accept it....I didn't EARN it!"
But no! He had to be an ass.

[Icelandic Woman]

Aug 5, 2016 19:57:27 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 5, 2016 13:33:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

there is considerably momentum developing in that direction- and partially it is due to Obama, who is now at 50+% approval.  it is hard to imagine the GOP retaining the Senate, as things stand today.

After the Khan debacle- and let's be clear: it was a debacle for Hillary; and the Iran airlifted pallets of cash ransom payment debacle-- don't look for the "bounce"-- which I've already documented to be completely manufactured- to develop into "momentum". This little bit of conventional wisdom right here- Trump loses in a landslide, and down-ticket losses follow- is never. Going. To. Happen.

Donald Trump is going to win in an historic landslide.

I don't think Trump is Reagan- that's not what I'm saying. But there are parallels in the theory of the election, and the pattern of support.  Reagan was down 5 points to the incumbent, Jimmy Carter, with 30 days to go.  Reagan won by 10 points, not 5 points. He won 489 electoral votes to 49 for Carter.

Who are you trying to convince with these posts yourself? As I have said before that Alternate Trump World you live in must be something else.
Most of us live in the real world and see this for what it is. CRAP!

[djAdvocate]

Aug 5, 2016 19:38:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Anyone care to explain how it is possible that Trump is leading with unaffiliated (voters not affiliated with any party) voters 41% to 29% after Hillary led by 5% last week?

I'll tell you how: they have no clue what's happening out there.

In the meantime, some WaPo guy named Robert Costa (not to be confused with Bob Costas) let slip the "Monster Vote" to a VERY nervous Charlie Rose.

RUSH: Now Robert Costa used to be a reporter at National Review. He was so admired by the Washington Post they, hired him away. He's now a reporter on the presidential campaign. He was on Charlie Rose last night. Charlie Rose said, "How deep and wide is the movement that Trump has...?" How long can it last?

COSTA: It's wider than any party. I mean, it includes some Bernie Sanders supporters. It includes some libertarians. The most important voter in this movement, uh, when I travel around the country, is the previously disengaged voter. They're almost a nonpartisan voter, but they've given up not just on the political process, but they've disengaged from civic society. They don't really follow politics. If that's a real coherent voting block, then Trump -- regardless of the polls -- will have a shot in November -- and regardless of all the mistakes -- because that's a huge block. There's so much of this country that rarely, if ever, votes, and if -- for some reason -- they come to the polls in droves, that changes everything.

RUSH: Charlie is now concerned. Charlie says, "What's your best evidence that Trump can actually pull this out?"

COSTA: I'm seeing it everywhere I go, people are just frustrated with the country at large, not just with a specific party. And Trump may be the benefit of that, but he's not entirely making an overture to them in a straightforward way every day. He's a symbol of someone who’s an outsider, an interloper, someone who’s against the establishment and the elite class, however people want to describe it.

RUSH: Okay, so numbers that go along here with Mr. Robert Costa's point. Voter turnout in 2008 it was 62.3 percent. In 2012, it was 57.5 percent. So five percent dip in voter turnout. Almost half the people in the country who could vote don't. Or in 2012 didn't. Probably about 45 percent who could vote didn't. If they show up, if Trump gets a fraction of them, it would totally upend every formula everybody has out there. These people are not polled. And also keep in this mind, and I never see anybody dispute this. Let me just ask you to see if you recall. The latest number in whatever poll you want to take, the number is pretty consistent poll to poll, the percentage of America people who think the country is headed in the wrong direction, what's the number? It's 70.



It is 70 percent.

Those people I thought would turn out for Romney that never showed up? They're wide awake. They're going to be there.

sure.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 5, 2016 19:57:27 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 5, 2016 13:33:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

there is considerably momentum developing in that direction- and partially it is due to Obama, who is now at 50+% approval.  it is hard to imagine the GOP retaining the Senate, as things stand today.

After the Khan debacle- and let's be clear: it was a debacle for Hillary;.

right.  which is why Trump is down 5.2% in the (9) days since Trump started going after gold star parents.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 5, 2016 20:33:50 GMT -5 Icelandic Woman said:

Aug 5, 2016 19:57:27 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

After the Khan debacle- and let's be clear: it was a debacle for Hillary; and the Iran airlifted pallets of cash ransom payment debacle-- don't look for the "bounce"-- which I've already documented to be completely manufactured- to develop into "momentum". This little bit of conventional wisdom right here- Trump loses in a landslide, and down-ticket losses follow- is never. Going. To. Happen.

Donald Trump is going to win in an historic landslide.

I don't think Trump is Reagan- that's not what I'm saying. But there are parallels in the theory of the election, and the pattern of support.  Reagan was down 5 points to the incumbent, Jimmy Carter, with 30 days to go.  Reagan won by 10 points, not 5 points. He won 489 electoral votes to 49 for Carter.

Who are you trying to convince with these posts yourself? As I have said before that Alternate Trump World you live in must be something else.
Most of us live in the real world and see this for what it is. CRAP!

when you bet and lose big, the only way to get back to EVEN is to bet big again. 

[tallguy]

Aug 5, 2016 21:27:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 5, 2016 20:33:50 GMT -5 Icelandic Woman said:

Who are you trying to convince with these posts yourself? As I have said before that Alternate Trump World you live in must be something else.
Most of us live in the real world and see this for what it is. CRAP!

when you bet and lose big, the only way to get back to EVEN is to bet big again. 

Problem is he won't even bet.  I've offered three times and haven't heard a peep.  Hear a lot of other stuff though....  All talk.  

[djAdvocate]

Aug 5, 2016 21:35:52 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Aug 5, 2016 21:27:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

when you bet and lose big, the only way to get back to EVEN is to bet big again. 

Problem is he won't even bet.  I've offered three times and haven't heard a peep.  Hear a lot of other stuff though....  All talk.  

i meant "staking one's reputation" when i said bet.  but i guess, if your reputation doesn't mean anything.......

[Deleted]

Aug 5, 2016 20:33:50 GMT -5 Icelandic Woman said:

Aug 5, 2016 19:57:27 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

After the Khan debacle- and let's be clear: it was a debacle for Hillary; and the Iran airlifted pallets of cash ransom payment debacle-- don't look for the "bounce"-- which I've already documented to be completely manufactured- to develop into "momentum". This little bit of conventional wisdom right here- Trump loses in a landslide, and down-ticket losses follow- is never. Going. To. Happen.

Donald Trump is going to win in an historic landslide.

I don't think Trump is Reagan- that's not what I'm saying. But there are parallels in the theory of the election, and the pattern of support.  Reagan was down 5 points to the incumbent, Jimmy Carter, with 30 days to go.  Reagan won by 10 points, not 5 points. He won 489 electoral votes to 49 for Carter.

Who are you trying to convince with these posts yourself? As I have said before that Alternate Trump World you live in must be something else.
Most of us live in the real world and see this for what it is. CRAP!

Unfortunately, I live in the real world, and I too see it as possible... and it scares the feces out of me!

(but then, the thought of a hillary presidency scares the HOLY feces out of me... so... )

[tallguy]

Aug 5, 2016 22:27:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 5, 2016 21:35:52 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Problem is he won't even bet.  I've offered three times and haven't heard a peep.  Hear a lot of other stuff though....  All talk.  

i meant "staking one's reputation" when i said bet.  but i guess, if your reputation doesn't mean anything.......

I know what you meant.   

[Tennesseer]

Aug 5, 2016 19:42:11 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 5, 2016 13:56:55 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

I can`t believe he had the temerity to actually accept this Purple Heart from a veteran.
Then added insult to injury by saying "What an easy way to get a Purple Heart!"

The man has no shame. None.

Put yourself in his shoes- set aside the politics. That's an awkward situation to be in.

How hard would it been for Trump to hand it back to the man and state for all the press to hear, "You earned it. Not me." Nothing awkward about that at all.

[Deleted]

Aug 5, 2016 22:27:09 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 5, 2016 20:33:50 GMT -5 Icelandic Woman said:

Who are you trying to convince with these posts yourself? As I have said before that Alternate Trump World you live in must be something else.
Most of us live in the real world and see this for what it is. CRAP!

Unfortunately, I live in the real world, and I too see it as possible... and it scares the feces out of me!

(but then, the thought of a hillary presidency scares the HOLY feces out of me... so... )

Why does Clinton scare you worse? I am trying to understand? 

[Deleted]

Aug 6, 2016 6:41:50 GMT -5 oped said:

Aug 5, 2016 22:27:09 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Unfortunately, I live in the real world, and I too see it as possible... and it scares the feces out of me!

(but then, the thought of a hillary presidency scares the HOLY feces out of me... so... )

Why does Clinton scare you worse? I am trying to understand? 

Have you not been paying attention to her activities over the last 8 years... or the last couple of month's worth of threads?

To save me a crap-load of typing... I shall simply direct you here: Hating Hillary - a look at some people and their reasons

I made several posts in that thread that should spell it out fairly quickly.

[djAdvocate]

Obama now stands at 51.2% average approval, which is a 3 1/2 year high dating back to the "Bin Laden Bounce".

he is now a mere 1.5% below his high dating back to his honeymoon phase (2009). 

Democrats are now +3 in the generic congressional poll, and probably heading for +4%, their best showing since 2008.

[happyhoix]

Aug 5, 2016 19:57:27 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 5, 2016 13:33:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

there is considerably momentum developing in that direction- and partially it is due to Obama, who is now at 50+% approval.  it is hard to imagine the GOP retaining the Senate, as things stand today.

After the Khan debacle- and let's be clear: it was a debacle for Hillary; and the Iran airlifted pallets of cash ransom payment debacle-- don't look for the "bounce"-- which I've already documented to be completely manufactured- to develop into "momentum". This little bit of conventional wisdom right here- Trump loses in a landslide, and down-ticket losses follow- is never. Going. To. Happen.

Donald Trump is going to win in an historic landslide.

I don't think Trump is Reagan- that's not what I'm saying. But there are parallels in the theory of the election, and the pattern of support.  Reagan was down 5 points to the incumbent, Jimmy Carter, with 30 days to go.  Reagan won by 10 points, not 5 points. He won 489 electoral votes to 49 for Carter.

That election had three candidates - Anderson/Carter/Reagan.

At this point in the race, Carter was 5 points ahead of Reagan . Clinton is what - 11 points ahead right now?

Carters approval rating had spiked in Nov 1979 when the hostages were taken - up to 58 percent. Then dropped steadily from there, to 39% in late March, and kept failing. In our current election, Trump keeps dropping and Hillary keeps rising.  

Then if you look at the favorability ratings, people had a lot higher favorability rating than Trump has ever enjoyed, even back before he started saying such random stupid shit.

So - apples to oranges comparison. Nothing similar in these two elections at all.

As for the Kahn debacle - 70% of the country - EVERYONE in the country - thought Trump was out of line going after them that way. I don't know how you can possibly think that was a debacle for HILLARY. In fact, it covered up the whole DNC/Sanders mess that SHOULD have been hogging the media attention, if Trump wasn't making such an ass of himself.

[Tennesseer]

Aug 8, 2016 16:03:52 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Aug 5, 2016 19:57:27 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

After the Khan debacle- and let's be clear: it was a debacle for Hillary; and the Iran airlifted pallets of cash ransom payment debacle-- don't look for the "bounce"-- which I've already documented to be completely manufactured- to develop into "momentum". This little bit of conventional wisdom right here- Trump loses in a landslide, and down-ticket losses follow- is never. Going. To. Happen.

Donald Trump is going to win in an historic landslide.

I don't think Trump is Reagan- that's not what I'm saying. But there are parallels in the theory of the election, and the pattern of support.  Reagan was down 5 points to the incumbent, Jimmy Carter, with 30 days to go.  Reagan won by 10 points, not 5 points. He won 489 electoral votes to 49 for Carter.

That election had three candidates - Anderson/Carter/Reagan.

At this point in the race, Carter was 5 points ahead of Reagan . Clinton is what - 11 points ahead right now?

Carters approval rating had spiked in Nov 1979 when the hostages were taken - up to 58 percent. Then dropped steadily from there, to 39% in late March, and kept failing. In our current election, Trump keeps dropping and Hillary keeps rising.  

Then if you look at the favorability ratings, people had a lot higher favorability rating than Trump has ever enjoyed, even back before he started saying such random stupid shit.

So - apples to oranges comparison. Nothing similar in these two elections at all.

As for the Kahn debacle - 70% of the country - EVERYONE in the country - thought Trump was out of line going after them that way. I don't know how you can possibly think that was a debacle for HILLARY. In fact, it covered up the whole DNC/Sanders mess that SHOULD have been hogging the media attention, if Trump wasn't making such an ass of himself.

One must always consider the source.

[b2r]

  

[happyhoix]

YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO (The Borowitz Report)—Donald J. Trump lashed out at a new target on Monday, blaming his bad poll numbers on the existence of the numerical system.

In sometimes rambling remarks at an outdoor rally in Ohio, the Republican Presidential nominee called the numerical system “rigged” and unleashed a torrent of abuse on numbers themselves, calling them “disgusting” and “the lowest form of life.”

“It’s why I won’t release my taxes,” he said. “They’re full of goddam numbers.”

While Republican candidates in the past have attempted to exploit their supporters’ distrust of math, Trump is believed to be the first nominee to call into question the numerical system itself.

Behind the scenes, G.O.P. insiders fretted that, in attacking the very existence of numbers, Trump was veering wildly off message.

www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-blames-bad-poll-numbers-on-existence-of-numerical-system

So - it's those stinking numbers.

[movingforward]

Aug 16, 2016 11:32:43 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO (The Borowitz Report)—Donald J. Trump lashed out at a new target on Monday, blaming his bad poll numbers on the existence of the numerical system.

In sometimes rambling remarks at an outdoor rally in Ohio, the Republican Presidential nominee called the numerical system “rigged” and unleashed a torrent of abuse on numbers themselves, calling them “disgusting” and “the lowest form of life.”

“It’s why I won’t release my taxes,” he said. “They’re full of goddam numbers.”

While Republican candidates in the past have attempted to exploit their supporters’ distrust of math, Trump is believed to be the first nominee to call into question the numerical system itself.

Behind the scenes, G.O.P. insiders fretted that, in attacking the very existence of numbers, Trump was veering wildly off message.

www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-blames-bad-poll-numbers-on-existence-of-numerical-system

So - it's those stinking numbers.

[weltschmerz]

Donald Trump had a rather tense private meeting with Congressional Republicans on Thursday. Let’s just say, it didn’t exactly inspire confidence in the Republican nominee for president
After the meeting, Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) spoke with reporters and admitted that Trump didn’t even seem to have a basic grasp of the U.S. Constitution, a document that all presidents are sworn to defend and assumed to have knowledge of.

news.groopspeak.com/trump-asked-question-about-u-s-constitution-by-gop-congressman-fails-terribly/

Lol! A nominee who isn't familiar with the US Constitution.
Shades of Sarah Palin!

[Shooby]

Aug 16, 2016 15:31:21 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Donald Trump had a rather tense private meeting with Congressional Republicans on Thursday. Let’s just say, it didn’t exactly inspire confidence in the Republican nominee for president
After the meeting, Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) spoke with reporters and admitted that Trump didn’t even seem to have a basic grasp of the U.S. Constitution, a document that all presidents are sworn to defend and assumed to have knowledge of.

news.groopspeak.com/trump-asked-question-about-u-s-constitution-by-gop-congressman-fails-terribly/

Lol! A nominee who isn't familiar with the US Constitution.
Shades of Sarah Palin!

And Hillary doesnt even understand she cant collect and delete classified yoga e-mails.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 16, 2016 15:55:39 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Aug 16, 2016 15:31:21 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Donald Trump had a rather tense private meeting with Congressional Republicans on Thursday. Let’s just say, it didn’t exactly inspire confidence in the Republican nominee for president
After the meeting, Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) spoke with reporters and admitted that Trump didn’t even seem to have a basic grasp of the U.S. Constitution, a document that all presidents are sworn to defend and assumed to have knowledge of.

news.groopspeak.com/trump-asked-question-about-u-s-constitution-by-gop-congressman-fails-terribly/

Lol! A nominee who isn't familiar with the US Constitution.
Shades of Sarah Palin!

And Hillary doesnt even understand she cant collect and delete classified yoga e-mails.

yeah, because "yoga e-mails" are just so much more troubling than Article 12. 

[weltschmerz]

Aug 16, 2016 15:55:39 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Aug 16, 2016 15:31:21 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Donald Trump had a rather tense private meeting with Congressional Republicans on Thursday. Let’s just say, it didn’t exactly inspire confidence in the Republican nominee for president
After the meeting, Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) spoke with reporters and admitted that Trump didn’t even seem to have a basic grasp of the U.S. Constitution, a document that all presidents are sworn to defend and assumed to have knowledge of.

news.groopspeak.com/trump-asked-question-about-u-s-constitution-by-gop-congressman-fails-terribly/

Lol! A nominee who isn't familiar with the US Constitution.
Shades of Sarah Palin!

And Hillary doesnt even understand she cant collect and delete classified yoga e-mails.

When are you going to change your name to "Yeah, But Hillary...."?

No comment forthcoming about Trump being clueless on the Constitution?
Well, it's you, so no.

[mmhmm]

Damn them evil nummers! Skeery thangs, they be -  and they cheat, and they lie, and they plot! Whatever you do, stay away from nummers!