Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Columbia, South Carolina (CNN)Donald Trump acknowledged Thursday that he "could have" signaled support for invading Iraq during a 2002 interview with Howard Stern.
"It was probably the first time I was asked that question," the GOP presidential front-runner told CNN's Anderson Cooper during a South Carolina town hall. "By the time the war started, I was against the war."
He also noted he "wasn't a politician" at the time of the interview.
Ahead of Saturday's South Carolina Republican primary, Trump has repeatedly blasted former President George W. Bush for launching the war.
But Buzzfeed posted Thursday Trump's interview with Stern, given on the first anniversary following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. When asked whether he would support an invasion, Trump responded: "Yeah, I guess so."
"You know, I wish the first time it was done correctly," he added in the interview.
Trump's criticism of the war could be a risky move in this military-dominated state. One man in the audience confronted Trump for saying that Bush had lied about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
"I would probably say that something was going on," Trump said. "I don't know why he went in" to Iraq.
Republican town hall: Donald Trump challenged over 9/11 - CNNPolitics.com
He's right though. Listen to the mastermind of the Iraq invasion, VP Dick Cheney, in 1994:
*spoiler - it doesn't matter since the superdelegate fix is in for Clinton.
On the brightside, with her numbers tanking, she will very likely lose the GE.
I hope he wins but I know he won't. Clinton will win SC and hopefully Bernie wins Nevada. But like you pointed out, the election is rigged for Clinton. I know he won't, but if Bernie ran as independent then Hillary would lose to any Republican nominee.
I hope he wins but I know he won't. Clinton will win SC and hopefully Bernie wins Nevada. But like you pointed out, the election is rigged for Clinton. I know he won't, but if Bernie ran as independent then Hillary would lose to any Republican nominee.
The election is not rigged for Hillary. If Bernie ends up taking more states and more delegates, superdelegates will switch to him. But since Hillary is out there raising money and campaigning for many of these people, why shouldn't they choose to support her?
Average of the 4 major National Pollster averages as of February 19th, 2016 (FiveThirtyEight Average, HuffPost Pollster Model, RealClear Politics Average, 270 to Win Average)
48.6% - Hillary Clinton
40.8% - Bernie Sanders
10.6% - Others / Undecided
We're so worried about super delegates, but they only make up 15% of the vote. If you look at the polls, Bernie is surging and will soon overtake Hillary. If we can keep the momentum going then we'll have enough regular delegates on Bernie's side to beat Clinton, even with all her super delegates! Then how will she get nominated?
We're so worried about super delegates, but they only make up 15% of the vote. If you look at the polls, Bernie is surging and will soon overtake Hillary. If we can keep the momentum going then we'll have enough regular delegates on Bernie's side to beat Clinton, even with all her super delegates! Then how will she get nominated?
What if Bernie wins the popular vote by 10% and the regular delegates by roughly the same. Then Hillary ads another 14% to for her total for the virtual lock she has on the Democrat's superdelegates, which constitute 15% of the total (say Bernie gets less than 1% of the superdelegates). In that case, Hillary wins the nomination by 4%.
Even with a pretty large margin over Hillary in the popular vote and the regular delegates, Bernie is still on track to lose this race as a result of the establishment insiders who are the Democrat's superdelegates.
The way the Democrats have structured the use of "superdelegates" it effectively insures the establishment insiders ability to pick their own winner. The race for the Democrats is rigged.
What if Bernie wins the popular vote by 10% and the regular delegates by roughly the same. Then Hillary ads another 14% to for her total for the virtual lock she has on the Democrat's superdelegates, which constitute 15% of the total (say Bernie gets less than 1% of the superdelegates). In that case, Hillary wins the nomination by 4%.
Even with a pretty large margin over Hillary in the popular vote and the regular delegates, Bernie is still on track to lose this race as a result of the establishment insiders who are the Democrat's superdelegates.
The way the Democrats have structured the use of "superdelegates" it effectively insures the establishment insiders ability to pick their own winner. The race for the Democrats is rigged.
you need to get your facts straight. It's not rigged at all as it was designed like that. Sanders himself is a super delegate and he chose to join the race.
Besides, Hillary Clinton received 17.9 million votes in the 2008 primaries and didn't get nominated.
Why are Bernie sanders' fans already whining about the system when he only has 150k at the moment?
Geez
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hard to believe my ears...
