Donald Trump comes in second in Iowa, gets dissed by his favorite singer Adele


The Iowa Caucuses were held yesterday, February 1. While I wasn’t expecting much to change overnight, I was pleasantly surprised to see that Donald Trump did not “win” Iowa. He didn’t come in first, he came in second. Which has to be a blow to his ego, and I would wallow in the pleasure of Trump’s sad orange face except for the fact that someone even worse actually won Iowa: Ted Cruz was #1. I know, it’s hard to choose who is worse, Trump or Cruz. But I really thought Trump’s gift to the world would be that he decimated the smug douche-Canadian known as Ted Cruz. Bring on the lawsuits, because I still say Cruz is ineligible for the presidency.

Monday was a bad day overall for Donald Trump. Not only did he come in second place to a dude most people absolutely loathe, Trump also got dissed by his favorite singer. You see, Trump is an Adele super-fan. He really, really loves Adele’s music, and he often played songs from 21 at his rallies, plus her Oscar-winning song “Skyfall.” He also attended her big Radio City Music Hall concert back in November. He’s a HUGE fan. But Adele’s lawyers just told Trump to stop playing her music at his campaign rallies.

Donald Trump “could’ve had it all,” but now he’ll have nothing, as Adele has denied him permission from using any of her music on the campaign trail. The real estate magnate has used “Rolling in the Deep” and “Skyfall” at various events to rev up the crowd, but that will soon come to an end as a rep for the famous singer tells E! News, “Adele has not given permission for her music to be used for any political campaigning.”

An Adele fan, Trump attended her Radio City Music Hall concert at the end of 2015. Trump isn’t the first politician to appropriate the British singer’s music for campaign use. Mike Huckabee also shared a cover of Adele’s “Hello” on Twitter rand YouTube, but the audio since has been muted as a result of a claim from the copyright holder.

[From E! News]

E! points out that Steven Tyler also refused permission to feature Aerosmith’s songs at Trump’s rallies. And Neil Young too. But I do think the Adele diss will probably hurt. For what’s it worth, I think Trump’s affection for Adele’s music was really genuine – he’s truly a fan. But still, he shouldn’t use her music at her rallies.

As for Trump’s Iowa loss… I mean, he still picked up delegates. And his speech after the caucus is being called a really great moment for him – he came across as almost humble, conciliatory and graceful.


Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

184 Responses to “Donald Trump comes in second in Iowa, gets dissed by his favorite singer Adele”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Mrs Hughes says:

    Good on her. Trump scares me, he comes over as aggressive, unpredictable and vapid.

    • Erinn says:

      I loved that she called that fact out.

      I also choose to believe he immediately went home and blasted Hello on repeat for like 3 hours while sobbing.

    • V4Real says:

      I’m just wondering what kind of nasty words he will have for Adele. She’s not a very good singer and he don’t like her music. Or will he criticize her looks.

      Maybe he will take the high road since so many of his supporters are probably Adele fans.

      • Naya says:

        He isnt exactly creative with his insults so it will probably be something along the lines of, “she is so fat, no wonder all the men leave her” and “she should stop saying hello to the doughnuts”. Something like that.

      • Marianne says:


        I can seem him using the word “cow” too.

    • JoJo says:

      And Trump’s supporters scare me. I was listening to NPR the other day, and one of his supporters said she believes that he will be a benevolent dictator, which is EXACTLY what she is looking for. It goes against everything this country stands for, and thank god we have a government set up to make that impossible.

      Adele should have taken it a step further by stating that she does not want her music used for politics, especially for someone like Trump.

      • Jwoolman says:

        Most people do want a benevolent dictator. It’s only when their own ox is gored that they suddenly realize that it’s essential to protect the rights of everyone, including people who make them feel uncomfortable, and that dictators are never a good idea.

        Every country is ultimately a democracy because no government can actually rule without the consent of the governed. Unfortunately, humans tend to put up with a lot before they actively withhold their silent consent, especially if they think they can be safe as long as they keep a low profile.

  2. NewWester says:

    Why doesn’t anyone ask the artist before using his/her music at a political rally or event? I have heard the same thing happening with other politicians

    • SusanneToo says:

      It’s been happening for decades. Reagan used Springsteen’s Born in the USA until he received a cease and desist order. They’re either stupid or arrogant or both. You ask permission first. If the answer is no, then no it is.

      • TQB says:

        The best part of that was the utter failure of the GOP to listen to the lyrics and understand what the song was about!

    • LadyMTL says:

      I was thinking the exact same thing! How hard could it be to get permission first? Or is it more a case of “let’s just hope it flies under the radar because we know they’d say no if we did ask”?

    • Kate says:

      Because the artists can’t actually do much of anything about it, politicians are free to use their music if they pay the relevant fees.

      If an artist comes out against them, depending on their political leanings supporters will either judge the artist a ‘Hollywood liberal’ or a redneck. A British singer saying she doesn’t want Trump playing her songs won’t hurt him at all, but having her songs playing may have helped him a teensy bit.

    • lilacflowers says:

      Several artists have sued and won but candidates persist (and they’re usually the Republicans for some reason). Reagan, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Trump have all faced this issue. It actually calls into question how much they care about the laws they will have to enforce if they can’t take the time to have a staff member confirm usage of someone else’s material beforehand.

      • Sarah(too) says:

        The “for some reason” that it is usually Republicans is because with the exception of country, most of the other artists are Democrats. Kid Rock and Ted Nugent (ick to both) being the exceptions I can think of.

    • Algernon says:

      Because if they asked, they would be told no, and they know it. If this happens with Democrats, I can’t name one off the top of my head, but it happens every campaign season with Republicans all the time. They know they won’t get permission, so they just use the music until the artist tells them to stop, then they move on and use someone else’s music until that person tells them to stop, and so on. And further…

      @ Kate

      The musicians can do everything about it. If you’re playing music at a public/recorded event, you have to have music clearances first, that is, formal permission. It’s not just paying the fees, the clearance determines the fee. That agreement is supposed to be signed beforehand. But, as I said above, if they asked first they would be told no, so they don’t ask.

    • sherry says:

      I suspect that all of these campaigns have obtained a “pubic performance license” to play at their events, which would make it legal for them to play these songs at their rallies, speaking engagements, etc.. However, that does not protect them from being sued by a particular artist if they are consistently using a certain song which implies an endorsement from that artist.

      So while they are in all likelihood legally using the song, they are still tiptoeing on a line if the artist doesn’t want to be associated with that particular candidate.

      • Kate says:

        Right, but it’s up to the artist to prove that the politician using their song has been taken as an endorsement by people. Most artists do what Adele has done here and say that they aren’t endorsing said politician. Which then means if they wanted to sue, they’d have no chance of winning.

    • MizFabulous says:

      Because it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.

  3. Nancy says:

    When the walls come tumbling down. You’re fired….

  4. Darkladi says:

    Cue Trumpty Dumpty’s ugly hissy fit Adele tweets in 3.2…

    • Aussie girl says:

      No instead ivanka posted a letter her daughter wrote to Adele saying how much she loves her music. It kind of felt like an attempt at emotional blackmail, like how can you say no to a child. Maybe it was just me.

    • EscapedConvent says:

      Absolutely true. I’m waiting for him to refer to Adele as a “loser.” It’s his favorite word. Anyone who doesn’t fawn and gush over him is a loser. He may also have to throw in a “fat” comment.

  5. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I love Adele even more now. I loathe Cruz, but no one is worse than Trump. I’m glad he didn’t win.

  6. JH says:

    Ted Cruz is a horrible, creepy candidate. He makes my skin crawl. I actually prefer Trump if having to choose between these two idiots.

    • Size Does Matter says:

      It’s like the most diabolical game of “who’d you rather” ever.

      • Keaton says:

        I know right? The one guy that is worse than Trump beat him. Ugh.

      • Size Does Matter says:

        That’s it, I’m starting a write in campaign. Everyone just write SIZE DOES MATTER on your ballot and we’ll see what happens.

      • Esmom says:

        It really is. I have to say I think I’d prefer Trump, as much as I loathe him, because Cruz strikes me as far more dangerous.

      • Kitten says:

        What you said, Esmom. It’s tough because I think Cruz is actually a legit and viable politician whereas Trump is just a reality TV buffoon masquerading as a presidential candidate…soooo, Cruz is actually more qualified, but Trump is less dangerous.

        I don’t know….can we say that they suck equally, but in different ways? Hmmmm…

    • Kitty says:

      Cruz creeps me out too. I’m not exactly sure what people are cheering about. There is something wrong with the guy.

      Trump is actually bombastic but gets more pragmatic when really talking about an issue. He was like that long before her ran for President. Cruz never does get pragmatic.

      Anyway, have faith Trump essentially splits the delegates with Cruz, and Iowa usually gets it wrong on who is the winner. While NH, usually picks correctly.

      That all said, I’m not a Republican but Trump has created such chaos in the Republican party and the media. It’s been great to watch.

    • Tifygodess24 says:

      I agree Ted Cruz scares the crap out of me. There is something about that man that is just no good.

      I keep feeling like Trump is really a democrat in disguise. I don’t know, he says crazy horrible things (which I think he does on purpose for some crazy reason) but I still would be less worried about him then Cruz. Good god what does that even say?!

    • SloaneY says:

      My husband says he looks like he’s from The Munsters and now I can’t unsee it.

    • Naya says:

      Trump doesnt believe in the positions he now claims to hold. Cruz does. Cruz really, really believes the crap he says. Cruz=danger.

    • Katy says:

      I agree completely!! I’m from Texas and it makes me sick he claims Texas as HIS state. It is NOT!! He does not represent anything that stands for Texans as far as I’m concerned. And I can’t believe I’m actually admitting it, but I believe Trump is the lesser of the two evils here. 🙁

    • holly hobby says:

      Ted Cruz has a very punchable face and I agree with Celebitchy. I don’t think he qualifies to run for office since he’s a CANADIAN.

      • perplexed says:

        But he is also an American that didn’t go through a naturalization process. And he has renounced Canadian citizenship. Why don’t the courts settle these things before the candidates run? (Or did they, and the media forgot to tell us? I can’t take the anxiety over figuring out which lunatic is going to take the ticket on the Republican side.)

      • bokchoi says:

        KEEP HIM. we dont want him.

    • isabelle says:

      Agree and think he is more dangerous of the two because he wants a theocratic law based system. Trump is a salesman and think in the long run as a salesman he would negotiate & his words aren’t necessarily his intent. Trump was right in saying that Cruz is a maniac that held Congress hostage for his own benefit. His former college roommate really dislikes him and has posted a lot about Cruz. He is on a god mission and means everything he says.

    • Mudflaps says:

      I don’t think Cruz has a better chance than Trump to win the general election. I think moderate Republicans just won’t vote.

    • ToxicShockAvenger says:

      Truly. It’s like deciding whether Edward Scissorhands or Freddy Krueger should be your OB-GYN.

  7. Clumsyme says:

    I still don’t understand how Ted Cruz is eligible to even run for president. I always understood natural born citizen as in you had to be born on actual US soil. I don’t understand how having one parent born in the US automatically makes you a natural born citizen. I know that you can become a citizen through said parent, but you still wouldn’t be born on US soil. Republicans and their logic. 😏

    • Brittney says:

      I look at this way: if that makes Cruz eligible, then Trump’s birther BS makes even less sense than it did before (so… negative sense?)

      Pres. Obama was born in the U.S. to a woman who was a natural born American citizen.

      Cruz was born in Canada to a woman who was a natural born American citizen.

      Even IF the wingnuts were right & Obama was born elsewhere, why aren’t they going after someone who is completely open about the fact that he wasn’t born here?

      …oh, right. Because at least he *looks* like a proper American. True colors revealed.

      • Alicia says:

        “Because at least he *looks* like a proper American.”

        He looks Hispanic.

      • doofus says:

        but, Alicia, his skin is the “right” color.

        that’s what it comes down to, no matter how much people say otherwise.

      • polonoscopy says:

        Can we stop calling Cruz Canadian though? Nothing about him would fly in Canada. Talk about his ineligibility sure, but being “born in Canada” and leaving as a baby does NOT make one a Canadian.

      • sienna says:

        Hey Polonoscopy…. I thought we gave citizenship to everyone borne here, regardless of their parents nationality?

        Cruz was a Canadian and only denounced his duality in something like 2011 (to lazy to confirm, but it was fairly recent). I’m glad he’s no longer a Canadian, because we don’t want him, but I think it’s fairplay to use this technicality to try to get such a frightening man away from possibly being POTUS.

      • Meee says:

        @alicia If he’s walking down the street and someone knew nothing about the man’s ethnic background, they’d assume he was white and not question it.

      • Jaded says:

        @Polonoscopy – he gave it up in May 2014. Canadian law states that anyone born in Canada IS a Canadian.

        @Alicia – he does not look the least bit Hispanic, he looks Caucasian.

      • perplexed says:

        I don’t think of him as Canadian either. Technically, he’s allowed Canadian citizenship through his birth, but it doesn’t sound like he himself was ever passionate about having the option — sounds like he just had it because that’s what the law says, they dictated to him the terms, and the option was freely available, but when he was finally asked to put in his say about how he felt about the duality because of procedures involved in running for the Presidency, he renounced immediately since the prospect of running for President was in potential jeopardy and required him to make a final call.

      • AntiSocialButterfly says:

        Because IOKIYAR

    • KAI says:

      If eligibility required one to be born in the US, those born to American parent(s) who are in the military and serving overseas would not be eligible. The same would apply to those born of persons working in an embassy or consulate in a foreign country. Would you consider that fair?

    • Lucrezia says:

      The general argument is that “natural-born citizens” are those who are citizens at birth. Those that don’t have to undergo naturalization to become citizens. That includes BOTH those born in the USA and those born overseas but automatically granted US citizenship at birth (like Cruz).

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      This one will have to be settled by the courts at some point or other. Apparently ‘natural born’ has been taken to mean that you are birthed by a US citizen, regardless of birthplace.

      The questions about Cruz … and I don’t have all of it straight … may have to do with whether his mother still held her US citizenship at the time at which she gave birth to him in Canada. The law may have been different then, and I’m pretty sure there was no dual US-Canadian citizenship for about another 10 years.

    • Sam says:

      Here’s the deal: there are two ways by which a person can become an American citizen at birth: 1.) just be born in the United States, regardless of your parents’ status, or 2.) be born outside the United States to at least one parent who is a long-term (at least 10 years) of the United States. Cruz clearly is not part of 1, but is part of 2 (his father isn’t relevant to the equation, since at the time, he was a citizen of Cuba, not Canada or the US).

      The problem with the natural-born clause is that, for me, it wasn’t really meant to be fair. The original drafters wanted a way to bar Alexander Hamilton from the presidency and used that clause to accomplish that (Hamilton was born in the Caribbean, IIRC). But the problem is that the courts have never stepped in and clearly defined whether native-born means having to be born inside the US or whether it simply means “a person entitled to citizenship at birth.” That’s the issue.

      • genie says:

        Long-time lurker, first-time poster.

        I’m just going to jump in here to clarify as I studied constitutional history and law in graduate school. I went to law school at UVA during the whole “birther” controversy in 2007-2009. According to my Constitutional law professor Edward White, it is a myth that the “natural born citizen” clause was meant to specifically exclude Alexander Hamilton from the presidency.

        At the time of the Declaration or even the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a great many Americans were either second generation citizens (born on US soil) or even first generation Americans, but had resided in the US for many years, supported the Revolution in many different ways and had been active citizens.

        Hamilton had been a resident of NY long before the Declaration or even the Articles of Confederation were ratified. This clause of “natural born citizen” was not retroactive for long-time citizens. Basically, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, if you were a long-time citizen (14 years and born on US soil or not), then you were eligible (which made Hamilton actually eligible). The reasons that he never ran had more to do with political feuds and the triumphant Democratic-Republicans over the Federalists than whether he was born on US soil or not.

        The Framers wanted only to exclude “latecomers,” primarily latecomers from Britain from being eligible to run for the Presidency.

        ETA: Framers’ intention or not (regarding Hamilton anyway), I do agree that the Supreme Court needs to address this issue once and for all.

    • perplexed says:

      John McCain wasn’t born on U.S soil. He ran the last time. I think he was born in Panama (but I’m not sure if he was born on a US base, and that’s why he was allowed to run?)

      I don’t like Ted Cruz, but I don’t think of him as being Canadian. Sounds like he was born there when his parents were temporarily working there, and the Canadian birthright citizenship was there as an option. But he and his parents (or at least his mother) opted to remain American. That said, I don’t know if he’s actually eligible according to the technical legal wording. But setting aside the constitutionality of his eligibility, I would be more likely to think of him as American than Canadian if he was just my neighbour down the street. It sounds weird to my ears when people say he’s Canadian when it appears he doesn’t even consider himself to be one.

  8. BengalCat2000 says:

    He also used an R.E.M. song without permission. Trump is gross. I can’t believe I used to think he had pretty lips, smdh

  9. frantasticstar says:

    Wait and see – he’s gonna play the “nice” card for a while to gain back some voters and then win. That will be a bleak day for the world.

  10. Scal says:

    He’s also gracious because he knows Iowa doesn’t really matter and getting second is fine for his campaign. The last two cycles Huckabee and Santorum both won Iowa. It trends christian conservative. In comparison Romney finished second, and John McCain finished 4th (behind Fred Thompson of all people.) The cacus is just for delegates-who aren’t legally obligated to vote the way Iowans say. In 2012 they all picked Romney at the nomination.

    What’s really going to matter is Super Tuesday when A bunch of those states are winner take all for nominating delegates. States that trend much more centrist than Iowa and old gop states. That will be the real deciding factor

    • Eggland's worst says:

      The Republicans in this state run Christian conservative. The Democrats are liberal. We have had one of the most liberal senators in the country in Senator Harkin before he retired. We also had legalized gay marriage BEFORE New York and California. Our state Senate is controlled by Democrats. I could go on. My point is, learn your facts before you run your mouth, please.

      • Scal says:

        Okay that escalated quickly.

        But fine-the republicans in the state run christian conservative. The rest of the point still stands. The Iowa caucus doesn’t matter. When the dem side was basically a tie (decided by 6 coin flips and a bunch of ballots going missing)-it’s Super Tuesday that matters. Bernie will sweep New Hampshire because he’s from Vermont-and then it comes down to Super Tuesday. The way that the Iowa caucus is set up and how the delegates at the nominating convention respond basically negates any ‘result’-the only reason it gets any media is because it’s first. And that’s okay, but the race doesn’t begin and end in Iowa by a long shot.

        Btw-saying the Iowa caucus doesn’t actuallu matter for a presidential race doesn’t mean that the PEOPLE of Iowa don’t matter. I’m just talking about the presidential races.

      • Dani8 says:

        Thank you. The state was also one of the first to legalize gay marriage. I get tired of the condescension that gets thrown at the Midwest. Often times by people who have never even set foot in the state.

    • lilacflowers says:

      He also was not expecting to win Iowa. He’s focusing on New Hampshire.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Yeah, we’re talking a difference of 3.4% in the Iowa caucus.

  11. BNA Fn says:

    I didn’t care who won Iowa last night as long as it was not that orange fish face trump. Today I know he a LOOSER. I bet that must hurt him like hell. Btw, I have not seen him on tv this morning calling everyone who does not agree with him. Btw, he was bursting out that shirt and suit last night, and he have the nerve to call others fat, he looked like a roasted pig last night.

  12. Citresse says:

    I was a bit surprised Cruz won meaning it wasn’t so close to call ie Sanders and Clinton, but then the tide is turning against Trump; meaning there is now a planned collective powerful backlash unleashed against him. The timing doesn’t surprise me at all. We’ll see how NH goes etc…
    Cruz has problems considering his birthplace. Bloomberg may surprise everyone by jumping into the race as a VP candidate.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Cruz’s problem isn’t his birthplace; it’s more about whether his mother was a US citizen still at the time she gave birth to him. But if he made it all the way and the case were challenged, the courts would have to settle this once and for all.

      • Sam says:

        That’s not quite right, I don’t think. There’s some question as to whether Cruz’s mother intended to renounce her American citizenship and remain in Canada permanently. The point became moot when Cruz’s father relocated the family back to the US for work purposes. However, I haven’t seen anything that indicated that she was not an American citizen when he was born. I don’t think showing evidence of intent to renounce would sway a court- the only question would be whether her American citizenship was still in place at the time of the birth.

      • Jaded says:

        She was born in Delaware and did not renounce her American citizenship. That would make him a “natural born” American citizen, i.e. he is a citizen from birth and doesn’t have to go through a naturalization process to become a citizen. The only spanner in the works is that the Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on the citizenship provision for presidential office holders so it’s still a bit “up in the air”.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Bloomberg is ostensibly thinking of running for P not VP, and as an Independent. But he wouldn’t run unless he thought he had a legitimate shot. If Bloomberg ran vs. Clinton, it could be very, very tight. Dream ticket for winning: Sanders-Bloomberg.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        Bloomberg won’t run against Clinton. He would have to file papers by March but he has clarified that he would withdraw if she is the nominee. He would run if Sanders is the nominee because he wants to give voters the choice of a moderate

  13. Luca76 says:

    Ted Cruz is much worse and scarier than Trump. Iowa almost never picks the candidate that ends up winning for Republicans. Trump will probably still win New Hampshire. I’m also afraid that whoever does get the candidacy might be a smarter crazy bastard that everyone will go easy on because he’s not Trump.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Establishment on the right is gathering itself around Rubio to look sane relative to Trump and Cruz. We need the Castro brothers to start making their plays on the national stage.

  14. Leah says:

    He looks like a character out of Hunger Games.

    • O_o_Odesa says:

      I can’t decide which one you mean, and I am now picturing both being interviewed by Ceasar Flickerman.

  15. H says:

    Cruz won because of the Evangelical voters in Iowa. I don’t think he’ll take New Hampshire. Like you, I think he’s ineligible because he’s Canadian and a moron that cost the taxpayers $24 billion dollars. That means most people I know will never vote for him (my family hates the guy and they are Republicans).

    As for Trump, he was gracious in losing. Who knew the guy could be humble.

    • Citresse says:

      Yes H, I was impressed by Trump’s speech last night. If he’s like that behind closed doors, then he should be President.

      • FingerBinger says:

        Trump has never held a political office in his life but should be president because of 1 speech? You’re joking?

      • Jaded says:

        Trump’s companies declared bankruptcy 4 times since 1991. Sure he didn’t file personal bankruptcy – that’s one of the perqs of being a business mogul. Sure thousands of people were out of jobs because of his shady financing structures (junk bonds, over-borrowing) but he was personally solvent.

        No other company in the US has had to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy more than Trump’s in the past 30 years. Oh, and during his first bankruptcy, his largest creditor was financier Carl Icahn, who held $400 million in bonds. Now Icahn is Trump’s pick for Treasury secretary should he be elected.

        Is this really someone who should be running a country? I think not.

      • Citresse says:

        Meaning Trump is a fan of negative attention seeking only. IRL- he considers all sides before making decisions and is essentially a reasonable, decent person. Remember it’s all speculation. People are all worried Trump will be a giant loose cannon (he’ll start WW3) if he becomes President when it may actually be the opposite.

      • Jaded says:

        An essentially reasonable, decent person?!

        “How much money is the extremely unattractive (both inside and out) Arianna Huffington paying her poor ex-hubby for the use of his name? I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man – he made a good decision!”

        “Look at that face. Would anybody vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?! I mean, she’s a woman, and I’m not s’posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?” (re: Carly Fiorina)

        “My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body.”

        “If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband, what makes her think she can satisfy America?”

        “You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”

        “It’s freezing and snowing in New York – we need global warming!”

        Sure, really decent and reasonable.

      • doofus says:

        Citresse, Trump is the second furthest candidate from being “reasonable” and “decent”…the first being Cruz.

        Jaded, thank you for the examples…what’s sad is that there are even worse ones out there…like “if Ivanka wasn’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her”. oh, and let’s not forget him calling Mexican immigrants “murderers” and “rapists”. and what about that glorious “she’s got blood coming out of her eyes…out of her wherever”. yeah, pure decency.

      • Citresse says:

        When Trump made his speech last night he could have gone up there and blamed all kinds of people etc for losing to Cruz and started a bunch of name calling etc… but he didn’t do that.
        Yes, I agree Trump has made some pretty ridiculous statements and at times, some hurtful statements directed at women especially Rosie O’Donnell but remember he got what he wanted: your attention. And anyway, we don’t know all the details- maybe Trump got on the phone to O’Donnell later and apologized? Maybe later they apologized to each other and agreed to disagree?

    • KAI says:

      Cruz is not Canadian. He renounced his Canadian Citizenship in May 2014.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Yeah, the hope is that he loses his US citizenship too and becomes stateless. : )

      • H says:

        @KAI I was commenting to Kaiser’s assertion that Cruz is ineligible for president because he was born in Canada. He “renounced” his citizenship because he was getting heat in Texas about that topic and I believe preparing for his eventual presidential run.

        I’m hoping the courts will finally rule on this issue and put it to bed.

    • Citresse says:

      If Cruz’s parents were in Canada (Calgary) at the time of their son’s birth, for only a limited time ie- a visa subject to an upcoming expiry date and no process of CDN permanent residency (a family application) then Cruz could be seen as a natural born US Citizen, I suppose. I don’t know enough of the history of Cruz’s parents sp- their long term intents, their professional life with regard to living permanently in Canada.
      Cruz’s mother could have made arrangements to keep her pre-natal visits in USA only and keep to a plan of giving birth in USA however, interesting she didn’t do so.

    • Jaded says:

      @H: Yes he’s a dangerous moron, no he is not Canadian. He renounced his Canadian citizenship a couple of years ago. His mother was born in Delaware and never renounced her American citizenship when they moved to Canada for his father’s job. That makes him what’s called a “natural born” American citizen.

    • holly hobby says:

      I fricking detest Ted “I want to shut the govt down just because” Cruz. For him to make it this far shows people don’t read up about the candidates. Just because he’s a bible thumper doesn’t make him fit for office!

    • Kitten says:

      I’m pretty sure that Trump is favored among Evangelicals.

  16. lowercaselois says:

    His second place is not a surprise to me, I think that the media was so focused on Donald and his Trumpets that they feed his ego and forgot about the rest of the GOP voters. IMO These candidates should always ask for the artists permission to use their music, it is actually a copyright issue if they do not.

  17. Alicia says:

    “Bring on the lawsuits, because I still say Cruz is ineligible for the presidency.”

    Most legal scholars would disagree with you. They say having at least one born-in-America parent makes you a “natural born citizen.” There are plenty of precedents backing that up.

    Not that it matters much, since Rubio will be the nominee.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      There may be some questions as to whether his mother was still a US citizen when she gave birth to him in Canada, because there was no dual US-Canadian citizenship at the time. If she had been away too long, it’s possible — and I don’t know this, and she’s been hedging and saying little — that she lost her US citizenship if she became a Canadian citizen. Only a court case would force her documentation out into the open. He may be fine, but there’s no way to know without following the paper trail.

      • Sam says:

        But that’s not really relevant. His mother had moved to Canada for work purposes, IIRC. Canada generally would not require an American living there for work purposes to become a citizen. From everything that’s been stated, the family wasn’t actually in Canada for very long. There is some evidence that indicates that they may have intended to stay permanently (there was something about Cruz’s mother trying to register as a voter in Canada at some point, although no documentation has been produced to support that contention), but it became moot when they returned to the US when Cruz was about 3 or 4. But I’m not sure why dual citizenship would have ever entered into the equation for somebody who was living in the country for work purposes. That would only even come up if she had affirmatively started the process for Canadian citizenship, and so far nobody has produced anything showing that she actually did that.

    • Eggland's worst says:

      I think the issue is whether or not he really is a US citizen. There are questions about dual citizenship and his mother renounced her American citizenship. If she renounced her citizenship or dual citizenship was not legal at the time, those are issues that could affect his status. If she was not a citizen at the time, he wasn’t either.

    • Citresse says:

      If Rubio wins the nomination then Clinton will be the first female President of USA.

  18. SusanneToo says:

    What I don’t understand, what upsets me, is why does a state of 3 million + people, 92% white, get to have so much influence on who will be the nominee and eventually president? It just seems crazy, skewed.

    • Brittney says:

      That’s asinine to me too, but when you think of the election cycle as a whole, it gets even worse: 1% of the country, 99% of them old and white, get to decide who has any chance at all. The corporate-sponsored media too.

      Enter Bernie Sanders.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        And what’s funny is Bernie Sanders is old and white. You’d think they’d like him. LOL.

    • Goldie says:

      Yeah, I don’t understand why the same states always go first. (Iowa, New Hampshire. etc.). I think it would make sense to change up the order of the caucuses and primaries each election so that certain states don’t get to have a disproportionate amount of power.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      But do they really have that much influence? I’m not sure they do. I totally agree with you, but I think a lot of it is just media hype.

    • Scal says:

      I said this up thread-but they don’t really. The Iowa republican caucus result has only picked the presidential canidate 50% of the time, the dems only 46%. A oft cited example is the republicans picked Santorum and huckabee the last two cycles.

      New Hampshire and Super Tuesday are the real predictors of success historically and def in recent years.

    • HappyMom says:

      Yes-it’s a total relic. I think the whole process needs to be overhauled. I think it should be one person-one vote: no more electoral college.

    • Eggland's worst says:

      NOBODY should go first. All primaries and caucuses should be on the same day, with states setting up early/absentee voting on their own. The president is supposed to represent the country as a whole. We have one election day, we need to have one day to choose the candidates. We also need to get rid of the electoral college and allow the popularly elected candidate to win. As for those saying, Iowa doesn’t matter, President Obama might beg to differ.

  19. grabbyhands says:

    I guess it speaks to the collective horror that this fascist has been as popular as he is and made it this far that everyone is ready to write him off after narrowly losing Iowa, but I think it would be foolish to assume he’s done. Having Ted Cruz being in first is not comforting because frankly it just makes his insidious, poisonous platform look sane to a lot of conservative voters in comparison to Trump.

  20. Crumpet says:

    “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution

    Cruz has no problems with his eligibility according to the Constitution.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      What a great logic problem! I read it as:

      a) MUST be citizen (born in US) or natural-born citizen (born to citizen, esp. mother, outside US)
      b) 35 years or older
      c) lived in the US for 14 years or more

      But the logic can perhaps be challenged as to whether it’s A + B + C or can be A OR B+C and so in. It also doesn’t specify whether the 14 years have to be continuous or immediately previous to presidency, etc etc etc. But we know from the, uh, inartful / antique wording of the 2nd amendment that clarity for modern use is not always that document’s strong suit.

      • Crumpet says:

        It is not at all ambiguous in my opinion. Born in the US OR a citizen of the United States. The remainder are clearly additive, as the word AND indicates.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      The purpose of the national born citizen and 14 years requirements were to block Alexander Hamilton from being president

      • SusanneToo says:

        And I’m sure had BO been born in Kenya it would be used to block him. By both the Repubs and Hillary.

      • genie says:

        Actually, the clause did not apply to Hamilton because he was a resident of NY at least 14 years and a citizen at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

      • Sam says:

        Susanne: Even if Obama had been born in Kenya, it would not have posed a barrier. Obama was born to a mother who had spent her entire life inside the United States. If he had (and he certainly was not) born outside the US, he would still qualify to run under the same qualifications as Ted Cruz. He qualifies as a citizen due to who his mother was. So birtherism is not only wrong, it’s fundamentally stupid.

      • SusanneToo says:

        @Sam. I’m quite aware of that That’s why I made the comment. During his run and his presidency Obama has been confronted with the spurious, birther nonsense. They couldn’t come right out and say truthfully why they opposed him so they came up with the “not a real American” cr*p.

  21. tschic says:

    Aren`t you frightened about your future president?
    here is a really long but good article about him from an european writer:

    I don`t want a USA with him or someone like Cruz. And I am in Europe.

    • SusanneToo says:

      A lot of people are frightened, yes. I don’t know anyone with half a brain who’s not frightened by most of the R candidates, especially Trump and Cruz.

      • Jayna says:

        The Republican Party is a mess, and until they come out of the dark ages, they will never make it to a Republican POTUS.. Each election you think you will see a change, but they are still catering to the far Christian right/Tea Party and fear-mongering. These three (Trump, Cruz, Rubio) are scary.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Very frightened. In my mind, the best case scenario is this – Hillary continues to loose steam, or gets indicted and has to drop out. Joe Biden enters the race and becomes president. American has four years to get it together and come up with a better option. And I don’t even like Biden. I just think he would do the least harm at this point.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      As someone living with serious pre-existing health conditions, I am very frightened of that monster and his vow to block me fro health insurance coverage. His religious zealotry and his bigotry also scare me.

      • SloaneY says:

        You and me, both, girl. I already pay out the nose for coverage. I’ll be da mned if I’m voting for someone who wants to make healthcare harder to get. I want single payer asap. Go Bernie.

    • Eggland's worst says:

      Hillary has lead most head-to-head polls against the Republican candidates. It is just a matter of getting more people out to vote. I think Democrats will be a lot more united against either Hillary or Bernie. Republicans might be less likely to vote for a candidate they don’t like (eg, someone who wants Cruz wouldn’t show up to vote for Rubio). Cooler heads usually prevail at election time. All the Democrats had to do was make it clear that if McCain was elected, Sarah Palin was one heartbeat away from being president. It scared people and worked. People showed up and voted for President Obama.

    • Marianne says:

      Im not american either, and I totally wouldnt be surprised if something like World war 3 happened with him in the office. He’s a hot-head. I cant imagine him having a civil discussion with anyone.

      • Lillylizard says:

        If Trump was elected president I don’t think he would actually stay alive for long if he showed signs of rocking the boat too much. The establishment (ie the real people in charge behind the scenes) likes organized chaos in the world its good for business.

  22. My Two Cents says:

    Only question I have is this the best of people each political party has to offer? If so, no wonder we have so many problems. Only thing media cares about is what Trump said and what was said about him. Just like this music thing. Has happened to many candidates on both sides, but it’s headlines when it happens to Trump.

    • Eggland's worst says:

      Unfortunately, the people we could really use in office don’t run because of the circus atmosphere of elections. Mr. Smith isn’t running for office anymore. Never before has Don Henley’s Dirty Laundry been more accurate.

  23. Bobafelty says:

    Cruz is full nut job like the duggars. Believes birth control = abortion and against abortion. So women lose total control of their reproduction organs. Might as well go back the dark ages.

    • Don't kill me I'm French says:

      And Marco Rubio?

      • Louisa says:

        He believes the same. Doesn’t come across as bat-shit crazy as Cruz but he will drag us back just the same.

      • word says:

        I saw Rubio on some late night talk show and he did not impress. He didn’t seem intelligent. I feel sorry for you Americans, there really is no good candidate to vote for…not even sure Hilary will do a great job but she’s the best you got !

    • isabelle says:

      He is a follower of Dominionism. A very scary and dangerous theology.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      And wants to abolish Planned Parenthood and destroy the patient protection and mandatory coverage provisions of the ACA so women can’t get treatment for those organs if they have cysts

    • Alicia says:

      “Might as well go back the dark ages.”

      You don’t get more “dark ages” than killing off a baby just because you don’t find it convenient to have around.

      • SloaneY says:

        You really can’t get more dark ages than getting raped or molested and ending up with a baby through no choice of your own, borne of a violent act forced upon your person.

      • Isabelle says:

        Forcing a woman to keep a baby she doesn’t want is more dark ages actually and leads to abuse, bad parenting with generational poverty. Countries where men are the dominating force and women are very much suppressed & forced to be submissive. There are countries that do disallow abortion and notice most of them are in the religious dark ages. ISIS, the Taliban and other theocrat Islamic ran states would approve.

      • doofus says:

        first, it’s not a baby. it’s a fetus, and sometimes not even that. sometimes it’s just a cluster of cells that look like a blob.

        second, most women don’t get abortions because a baby is “inconvenient”.

        third, until the so-called pro-lifers (who are, in all actuality, solely pro-BIRTH) want to help all these mothers with the baby AFTER IT’S BORN (and not gut social programs), they can just shut the F up.

  24. FingerBinger says:

    Play Kid Rock and Ted Nugent songs. They won’t mind. They’d love it.

  25. anne_000 says:

    Actually, I thought it was very good news that Trump lost, even to Cruz. I think Trump has a better chance to win than Cruz because of his popularity through show business. Look at Arnold S. I think he won based on this. And I think Cruz has less of a chance to win against the Dem nominee in the final election. With Trump as the GOP nom, I’d be more worried.

  26. CK says:

    Cruz got 8 delegates while Trump got 7. He’s not done and could still take the nomination if his organization improves to match his polling. It’s also worth nothing, the last 2 winners of Iowa, Santorum and Huckabee failed to capture the nomination and Cruz, given his evangelical support, was expected to carry Iowa anyway prior to Trump becoming a “serious” candidate. That Trump effectively cut into Cruz’s support there means that Cruz will probably have a rough time securing the nomination while Trump is still running. The GOP race was a circus before, but now it’s become a full blown sh*tshow.

  27. iheartgossip says:

    WHY does he believe he can take over any and everything? As if anyone could use the word Trump without him suing the pants off them. What a tool.

  28. Veronica says:

    His Iowa speech actually disturbs me more than anything. It means that he’s becoming increasingly politically savvy where his campaign is concerned, and that means bad things for all of us.

  29. Mellie says:

    I’m not a Hillary or Ted supporter and I’m afraid if Trump gets elected the entire world is going to be gunning for us literally. I think I’ll “feel the Bern” instead 🙂

  30. Miran says:

    He looks like someone pissed on his head in the thumbnail and that tickles me to death simply out of spite.

  31. aquarius64 says:

    Thing 1 lost to Thing 2. The Trump-ire has been taken down a peg but he’s still going to be around. As an American I am embarrassed about this election cycle and there is a swath of people who wants a guy who basically throws his toys out of the pram over any real or imagined slight to be the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of America’s armed forces. My hope is that the grown ups come out in full force during primary season and tell Trump through the ballot box he’s NOT hired.

  32. supposedtobeworking says:

    I found this to be a really interesting historical and contextual read about the term and intent of ‘natural born citizen’.