Trump

[tufty]

It's racist if he doesn't build a northern wall!

It's gonna be north of Mexico, doesn't that count?

[gumboot]

Hmm... It's a matter of perspective, isn't it. Like, how can it be racist if Mexicans pay for it?

[tufty]

Hmm... It's a matter of perspective, isn't it. Like, how can it be racist if Mexicans pay for it?

They wouldn't pay for it if they didn't want it.

[gumboot]

Maybe it's the Mexicans who are racist.

[tufty]

That's spelt R-A-P-I-S-T-S

[F-ZeroOne]

It's racist if he doesn't build a northern wall!

No, thats just being chronically unprepared for the threat of White Walkers (or Canadians, as Trump probably calls them).

[KlaxonCow]

Hadrian built a northern wall.

As far as I know, he didn't make the Picts pay for it, though.

[Darkflame]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/d ... rse-223436

Not surprising.
Its funny, anyone else and this would be a slightly twisted story to make the guy look worse and thus make it more "news".
But in Trumps case its the other way. They don't even mention that he said about it was a hoax by the Chinese to move jobs.

Its also sad how he tries to twist it and say its good to hedge bets. Which it is - but apparently that doesn't apply to, you know humanity as a whole - just his golf courses.

[gumboot]

Golf courses will be the only survivors of the impending solar holocaust if Trump gets his way.

[pogo]

Elisabeth Warren on Donald Trump. A shame she’s not the democratic candidate, she is by far the most impressive and articulate politician on the left today. Wonder if she will just go back to the Senate after this or end up in some other role, such as in the cabinet or even VP.

[Darkflame]

Long article here;
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ves-213874

Basically her influence is already pretty big, so she (probably) would be in a worse position to effect change if she was VP....other then the fact that her being VP might give clinton more votes.

[Darkflame]

Long article here;
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ves-213874

Basically her influence is already pretty big, so she (probably) would be in a worse position to effect change if she was VP....other then the fact that her being VP might give clinton more votes.

[pogo]

She has no real power now. She is just a senator and they have no power individually. It’s not like here where any competent MP ends up a minister, or a shadow minister if in opposition. Even worse as a Democrat she is in the minority while the Republicans run the Senate. Her influence comes from speeches like that. When she talks people listens. She is an excellent speaker, and very intelligent. Her particular area of experience/expertise is the financial crisis but she can talk about anything, including a dissection of Trump like that. He has no answer to her except insults.

She would make an excellent Vice President, as it would give her a platform to continue haranguing Wall Street and Big Business, without even the limited obligations of being a Senator. It would be a bold choice by Clinton, but that makes me think Clinton won’t choose her, but will instead go for someone more centrist, probably male, from a key swing state or region.

[KlaxonCow]

Also, going for the first female President AND the first female Vice President simultaneously might be being overly ambitious.

It's just openly inviting the "women in close proximity menstrually synchronise" jokes against a backdrop where there's still plenty of Americans out there who think "a woman would be too soft / too emotional / can't be authoritative" (as I've already heard some say).

Thanks to Maggie (and Queen Liz 2), no-one would ever take such a notion remotely seriously over here. But that might make us a tad spoilt not to appreciate that such ideas do still hold some currency in some places with some people.

(The overly religious might have some issues, as I covered before, from the Biblical thing where it says that a woman should hold no authority over a man. The sticking point in why female priests / vicars / bishops still gets debated and rejected by the traditionalists. Generally, I'd say that that's not taken too seriously anymore by the wider population... but the fundamentalists are a different matter, as they like to take the whole fucking thing utterly literally from cover to cover.)

[pogo]

I don’t think Warren’s gender would be that much of an issue. Americans may never have been led nationally by a woman before but there have been many women senators, governors and other officials. Warren would help Clinton attract Sanders voters, and help counter many of Clinton’s negatives. Essentially women haters already have reason enough not to vote for Clinton.

Trump’s attacks on the GOP’s most prominent Latina, Susana Martinez, should alarm Republicans

Trump has been at it again, alienating women and Latino voters at the same time. Crucially she is a Republican. She should be supporting Trump, he should be supporting her when in her state. But he finds it much easier to launch baseless attacks, simply as she has not yet endorsed him.