Naturally the Trump campaign is bellowing its disapproval of the Cruz-Kasich deal. But there’s nothing unfair about enabling the anti-Trump majority, if it exists, from stopping the nomination of a candidate it believes would be disastrous for the party and dangerous for the nation.
Finally. I hope it’s not too late. Of course, “bellowing” is what the Trump campaign does best.
[Update a few minutes later]
Present
I Regret Voting For Donald Trump https://t.co/j7ukfhAi2U pic.twitter.com/BMoZUAXYpc — Jim Treacher (@jtLOL) April 26, 2016 nt-at-the-destruction/” target=”_blank”>at the destruction
As a result of this profound success, whatever the differences between the two major parties may have been on other issues, these two fundamental bedrock principles underlying the creation and continuation of the post-1945 world order have remained uncontroversial among serious political leaders for the seven decades ever since.
Unfortunately, this has now changed. In both major parties, powerful figures have arisen who are challenging this long-held consensus. Among the Democrats, the chief usurper is the Marxian socialist Bernie Sanders. Among the Republicans, it is the national socialist Donald Trump. Both would gut the Western alliance. Both would wreck the system of global free trade. Both would cause a global depression. Both would unleash the dogs of war. While their rhetoric is quite different, on the central issue of defending or betraying the Pax Americana, the program of both is the same.
It is to be expected that a rabid left-wing socialist like Bernie Sanders would support such a program, and one must be thankful that the remaining Atlanticist forces within the Democratic Party appear to have him and his faction in check – at least for this election year. But what can one say of the Republicans and allegedly “right wing” radical Donald Trump? National Review founder William F. Buckley used to say that conservatives should support the most conservative electable candidate. Hillary Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s deleterious liberal policies for four more years. So she is certainly no conservative. But Donald Trump would destroy the Western alliance and the world economy. On the basis of that comparison, if the two were to face off in November, as incredible as it may seem, William F. Buckley would have no choice but to vote for Clinton. Surely we can do better.
Unfortunately, the problem with Clinton goes far beyond per prospective policies. She would be the most corrupt president since, well…the last time we had a President Clinton. Though Obama’s been no slouch in that regard, either.
[Tuesday-morning update]
Why I regret my vote for Trump.
I Regret Voting For Donald Trump https://t.co/j7ukfhAi2U pic.twitter.com/BMoZUAXYpc
— Jim Treacher (@jtLOL) April 26, 2016
Still waiting for some Trumkin, somewhere, showing me that Trump is more pro-freedom than Cruz.
See my remarks below.
You can advance what you want and what the Republic needs by criticizing Trump, but you won’t get to that place by criticizing Trump voters. I think you, me, Rand, everyone needs to better understand the motivation behind support for Trump in order to get in front of it with a wild-card selection at the Convention.
I think we understand the motivation. I just happen to think it is unclear thinking.
If Trump becomes President Trump voters will be horribly disappointed.
If Trump loses to Hillary…clearly the easiest Dem to beat….there will be a LOT of anger and it won’t be pointed at Hilla-roid.
Right. Because the candidates the Establishment has chosen have such stellar winning records.
Bart,
No one has a lower opinion of the GOPe than I.
That doesn’t immediately follow, therefore, that I should vote for a clownish moron. It’s not binary.
I don’t consider Cruz part of the GOPe, btw.
“If Trump becomes President Trump voters will be horribly disappointed.”
Probably. But no more so than they will be if Cruz becomes President.
But he won’t, because he can’t win without the Trump supporters, most of whom won’t vote for ‘anyone but Trump’. As far as I can see, the only choice in this election is Trump or Clinton, unless Obama throws her under the bus.
“Probably. But no more so than they will be if Cruz becomes President.”
I happen to disagree.
“But he won’t, because he can’t win without the Trump supporters,…”
I happen to think Trump is worse off in that regard – he can’t win without Cruz supporters. Trumps negatives are through the roof. He can’t afford to lose anyone.
I’m no “Trumkin”, whatever that means, but the rhetoric here is terribly overwrought. Trump a “National Socialist”? Gimme a break. And,
“Hillary Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s deleterious liberal policies for four more years. So she is certainly no conservative. But Donald Trump would destroy the Western alliance and the world economy.”
Oh, please. On what basis could any rational being conclude that Clinton would be better for the Western Alliance and the world economy? Criticize Trump all you like, but he does have a number of successful enterprises under his belt. Does Hillary have even one? Just one?
Cruz may pick up the nomination, but he won’t keep it for long. As I’ve been arguing for months, he’s ineligible under Article II because he’s foreign born, not native born.
He’s won two challenges, and in the latest the NJ judge admitted it was a very serious question that would probably have to go to the Supreme Court, and all but screamed “I’m ruling in his favor, but don’t hold me to it!”
Democrats, of course, or going to file a challenge with a Democrat appointed liberal judge, and they’re going to do it in a whole lot of states. They probably have several teams working on it.
But it’s not unlikely that that’s the Republican plan. If they stop Trump and don’t nominate Cruz the convention will dissolve into chaos, with fights, shootings, riots, and human cannibalism. Far easier to let Cruz get the nomination, let the Democrats win their challenge, and then have the serious GOP establishment figures feign shock and disbelief and say they’ll scramble to save the election. Then they’ll go off into a closed room, laugh hysterically, and come out an announce that they’ve chosen the Romney/Jeb ticket.
And speaking of the NJ decision, I left a comment for Mario Apuzzo (whose been conducting the challenges) that he needs to change strategy. The question of whether Cruz can run for President is actually irrelevant compared to the question of whether natural born citizenship passes by descent, which is what Cruz’s argument requires and what his victories in court establish as precedent.
It would be far easier to find a bunch of non-citizen children born to US parents, or descendants of such, such as our soldiers create by the tens of thousands during a war, and have them file suit based on the existing rulings for Cruz. If indeed natural born citizenship is inherited then they are not only automatic US citizens, but automatic natural born citizens whose citizenship cannot be refused, nor can they be denied entry, even though they’ve met none of the criteria and procedures mandated by Congress and the Immigration and Citizenship Service, because none of that applies to natural born citizens.
It also means Chinese Americans can open sperm banks in Beijing selling “natural born US citizen seed” and Congress would be powerless to bar the resulting children from entry, because Congress was only granted the power to write rules for the uniform naturalization of aliens. If it was never an alien, they can’t touch it.
Constant repetition is not argument. Scores of Constitutional scholars have explained why you are wrong, but like any good conspiracy theorist, you just don’t care.
And you’re behind the times. The up-to-date Trump nutters have moved beyond Birtherism to a new conspiracy theory: Trump’s father helped murder JFK! (I guess I’m “honored.” Trumpets were texting this story to me even before it appeared in the National Enquirer.)
The fact that you have to resort to antics like this just to win the primary says a lot about your candidate.
Finally, one word of advice, George. If Trump sends you out looking for goatmen, watch out for trains:
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/tourist-killed-by-train-while-stalking-legendary-goatman-monster-on-kentucky-railroad-bridge/
You mean Cruz’ father? Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense to me.
It’s not Goatman – it’s ManBearPig. I’m totally serial.
tl;dn
But too summarize what I saw: Cruz has won two legal challenges, so he’s wrong.
Actually Mario Apuzzo told me he’s writing up the alternate legal angles I suggested (above) in detail in his appeal of the NJ ruling and the Appelate Division in Williams v. Cruz (PA).
Cruz is not the first and only person ever born abroad to a US parent. There are proably millions of them, and a great many are not even US citizens. Constitutionally, such people are and always have been born as aliens, who we then immediately naturalize under statute into what were termed “born citizens”. We know they were aliens because if they weren’t, the government wouldn’t have the power to make them citizens, or to pick which ones are or not granted citizenship based on circumstance, such as the complicated legal requirements for children born abroad to a US father and an alien mother who is not his wife.
Such laws cannot apply to natural born citizens. If you’re born in Cleveland we don’t care how your parents got along with each other, you’re a US citizen – end of story.
More simply, for those keeping score at home, “natural born” means “native born”. The Founders thought that a person’s primary loyalty always laid with the country of their birth, and that foreign governments would try to put their own loyal subjects into the office of President to sway the US to favor them, or to use various clever ruses to strip us of our sovereignty, as happened time and again Europe due to dynastic marriages between royal families.
Twenty years ago, Hillary had tremendous success running Slick Willie’s “bimbo eruptions war room,” from which she’d send her flying monkeys, James Carville and George Stephanopolous, to do the rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows and slander whichever women had accused Bill of rape that week.
That’s the only success she’s ever had in her entire life, unless you count successfully evading prosecution for some extremely suspicious-looking real estate deals and chicken futures trades.
Cattle futures.
–Bilwick
April 25, 2016 at 11:53 AM
Still waiting for some Trumkin, somewhere, showing me that Trump is more pro-freedom than Cruz.–
The main point would be Trump has so far beat Cruz in terms of primary races. Or of the three candidates in the race, Trump is beating both of them. And recently Cruz is not even beating Kasich. Now, in next primary Kasich has decided not to put much resources in to Indiana, and therefore it’s seems like Cruz will beat Kasich Indiana, and both of them seem to think Kasich will beat Cruz in primary race which are after Indiana.
And in terms of total number of primary voter, Trump will have the most amount of primary voters which voted for him of all republican contenders. It also seems possible that Trump *could* possibly get more primary votes than Clinton does- despite Clinton being in the lead of a two man Dem race and Trump having mostly 3 or 4 man contested primary race, mostly so far, and likely to have 3 way contest by the end of the republican primary. Though Clinton currently has large lead over Trump in primary numbers at the moment.
It seems that so far in primary season, Trump has demonstrated that he is most likely to beat Clinton in a general election, and Cruz has not demonstrated any ability to beat Clinton in the battleground states.
Though Indiana could possibly show some improvement for Cruz in this regard and Indiana election is very important for Cruz.
A major downside for Cruz in Indiana is it is a open primary and a lot votes have already voted in the Indiana primary, and will continue to vote until it’s election day- and polls seem to indicate that Trump is in the lead.
I think the Cruz campaign with the addition of Carly Fiorina as VP has possibility of great advantage for the Cruz campaign. First it had the advantage of stopping the bleeding from the last 6 defeats, but could have much greater upside in terms final primary states- particularly in California.
I don’t think Cruz can stop Trump from winning the primary- or it’s Trump’s to lose, but this potential strengthening of the Cruz campaign may end up being a campaign for Carly Fiorina to be Trump’s VP.
And an interesting question for me, is does Cruz allow Carly to shine and can Carly shine. This will show a lot about Cruz’s character and his ability.
And generally speaking it would seem like a very good idea if Trump could corral a lot of 16 presidential candidates on to his “ticket”/cabinet- after all they were a very impressive bunch of candidates which could useful to make America great, again.
Whereas neither Clinton or Sander would be a very good choice for any kind of Dem team.
And it should be noted that many dems are afraid of Trump because he is predictable and free to assault them on many fronts. Labor leaders are worried Trump could take their followers and it’s even possible Trump could grab a larger portion of the black vote.
Freeing the blacks from the shackles of the Dem machine could significant step forwards in regards to pro-freedom.
Poll: Trump 37, Cruz 35 in Indiana :
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/04/poll-trump-37-cruz-35-in-indiana.php
” It’s Trump 37, Cruz 35, and Kasich 16.”
It seems by the time of election, the Kasich number should be lower
than 16 and be essentially two way race in Indiana and hard to say who will win.
Cruz needs a landslide which he is unlikely to get. A win should help a bit will funding.
An interesting question about funding is, with Carly being VP has she
effectively un-suppended her campaign in regards to using the listed 1.3 million of her campaign money? Or does un-suspending require that her name be a separate candidate or something. Or does announcement of VP in any way effect any rules in regard to this.
It seems to me it’s a very good thing for the republican party to have contested election all the way to California- which is contrary to accepted wisdom of primaries- or there seems to be effort of designing a primary to shorten the race so that the winning candidate can focus the campaign against the other party’s candidate. And also an effort not to have a contested convention.
I also think high voter turnout in general helps republicans- rather than helps Dems- again against accepted wisdom. And that Clinton will have big problem getting out Dem voters- Sanders would do better. Or the political machine is most effective with a low voter turn out- which is limited to number that a machine can persuade directly to get the polls.
There’s a comment above mine that they system won’t display, so apologies if this has already been covered;
The Cruz/Kasich pact covers three states; Oregon, New Mexico, and Indiana. The premise is that there’s a cease-fire between the two in those states, with Cruz asking his voters to vote for Kasich in Oregon and New Mexico, while Kasich directs his voters in Indiana to vote Cruz.
For this strategy to have any chance of working, it’d require that both candidates follow it, and also that a lot of their voters go along. If, however, one of them, say, Kasich, starts saying about his Indiana voters; “I’ve never told them not to vote for me, they ought to vote for me.” then it won’t work beyond letting the two campaigns direct their spending elsewhere.
And Kasich said just that this morning;
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/277500-kasich-indiana-voters-ought-to-vote-for-me
On Wednesday, March 2, I came out and posted on Rand’s fine site that 1) the time to rally against Trump was now (i.e. Wed March 2, not Monday, April 25), 2) the person to rally behind was Ted Cruz, 3) the Republican Establishment would have to reach a “peace agreement” with Senator Cruz, and the Senator would have to reciprocate to mend fences with the Establishment and a whole lot of other people.
Leading up to Tuesday, April 5, and being registered in Wisconsin, I was offering comments “milking” (excuse the Dairy State pun) this circumstance for all it was worth, describing the actions Senator Cruz would have to take to court my vote. Rand . . . was . . . not . . . amused.
But the principle is still the same, and it appears that no one, including Mr. Cruz, has taken action on it.
On one hand you have Mr. Trump, who is arguably intellectually disabled with respect to serving as president. On the other hand you have the Trump voters, who are argued to be intellectually disadvantaged (“I love the poorly educated!” announced Mr. Trump in a primary election victory speech).
I find Senator Cruz to be . . . tiresome. One of the sayings from an engineering professor who had served the U at the highest levels was that you don’t want people in high responsibility administrative positions who badly want such posts. There is a level of ambition that I find troubling, much as others find a similar level of ambition troubling in a native of Park Ridge, Illinois.
Second, his focus is entirely tactical in terms of getting commitments from delegates, again, much like a native of Park Ridge, Illinois you may have heard about.
Third, he doesn’t seem to be doing anything to mend fences with Trump voters to unify the party, should he win in a contested convention. He and others refer to Mr. Trump as a “cry baby” in complaining about the delegate selection process that Mr. Cruz is busy gaming, but Donald Trumps cries of “foul” are meant to rally his voters — its not like “the Donald” has ever had a negotiation setback before, and the cry baby remark is aimed at . . . a large swath of Republican voters.
There is a kind of Libertarian-Tea Party-Koch Industries Complex that the Trump voter is rejecting. No, Mr. Trump is not a true Conservative, but that is a feature and not a bug and I have offered my reasoning on this at length.
Yes, “Cleveland, we’ve got a problem”, but it is not that the Trump voters are stoopid. Ignore what they want at your own risk.
I think for the sake of the Republic that Mr. Trump has to come up short and send “this thing to the Convention.” But I don’t think Mr. Cruz is such a great choice at this point either, and if the Convention chooses neither Trump nor Cruz, how do you rally people behind whoever that person will be?
IMHO, if Trump isn’t the nominee, you’ll have approx. 1/3 offended. The same is true of Cruz.
But if it’s nether of them, you’re looking at 2/3 of the party offended, which is far worse.
So, my opinion is that getting any sort of party unity out of either Cruz or Trump is hard, but if it’s someone else it’s far harder. And, if the nominee is a corrupt establishment hack, it’s impossible – and I’d be willing to bet good money that if the nominee isn’t Trump or Cruz, it will be an establishment hack. (The establishment is simply not going to pass up the opportunity to insert one of their own). The result of this would be a defeat in November on an epic scale, one with down-ticket implications that makes the fears over the scale of a Trump loss minor in comparison.
At this juncture, perhaps the best that can be hoped for is a Trump/Cruz ticket, but I don’t see that happening for a host of reasons. It could, if done right, be the least bad solution. Here’s an alternate-universe hypothetical; A Trump/Cruz ticket where Trump announces that he takes “advise and consent” of the senate seriously regarding supreme court nominees, so he’d delegate the choosing of a SC nominee to the President of the Senate (the VP).
Or, on the flip side…. Cruz/Trump… but Trump wouldn’t want to be VP. However, he’d make an ideal US ambassador to the United Nations, so perhaps a Cruz/Kasich ticket with Trump on board as the UN ambassador designee.
Yeah, I know, I’m grasping at straws.
–At this juncture, perhaps the best that can be hoped for is a Trump/Cruz ticket, but I don’t see that happening for a host of reasons. It could, if done right, be the least bad solution. Here’s an alternate-universe hypothetical; A Trump/Cruz ticket where Trump announces that he takes “advise and consent” of the senate seriously regarding supreme court nominees, so he’d delegate the choosing of a SC nominee to the President of the Senate (the VP). —
Well, Cruz main job as VP could finding SC nominees and Trump makes sure they are conservative enough before submitting to Senate.
–Or, on the flip side…. Cruz/Trump… but Trump wouldn’t want to be VP. However, he’d make an ideal US ambassador to the United Nations, so perhaps a Cruz/Kasich ticket with Trump on board as the UN ambassador designee.–
I doubt Trump has any interest in anything other President. And Cruz is young and could effectively get more than 8 years as President and President in training.
UN ambassador would be crazy for Trump- now, maybe, the Czar for building the wall could something Trump could have some interest in doing. But I think Trump thinks Cruz has no chance against Clinton or Bernie.
Instead he probably announce he doesn’t want anything to do with Republican party- and probably not want to waste any money on doing third party. Plus he probably not want to be blamed for Cruz ultimate defeat against Clinton or Bernie.
I imagine Trump understands Clinton pretty well- and thinks it would be bad for America if Clinton is President. I think a fair amount Dems know this also- but the same probably think she is better than Cruz.
The good news in any case- Cruz, Clinton, Berie, or even Trump is they probably will be a one term President. And could be “interesting times” if impeachment shorten the one term.
The sort of bad news is Cruz as Trump’s VP could a poison pill against any possible Trump impeachment. Or perhaps Kasich as Trump’s VP could be a enticement of impeachment:).
“and if the Convention chooses neither Trump nor Cruz, how do you rally people behind whoever that person will be?”
Play a few sentences of Hilla-roid’s screeching grating annoying voice over and over and over. Especially when she talks about gun rights.
The screeching of Sauron, depresses people.
Play the video where she barked like a dog, back in February.
Now, THAT was Presidential, and fully in line with my expectations of her respect for the dignity of the office.
Most of the wailing and gnashing of teeth seems to be about protecting the status quo for certain sets of people. Not surprising, it is in our nature as humans.
As a “Trumkin” I will freely admit he is not the President I would design from scratch, but then neither are any of my other options. Ted Cruz, an early favorite of mine, has become less and less attractive as I learn more about him and his ways.
Should the electorate see fit to vote in Trump look at it as the latest attempt to treat the cancer that is our Ruling Class. Past attempts have been unsuccessful, and this attempt may be as well.
As Paul mentioned above, simply casting aspersions on those voting for Trump is not helpful. Given the thousands or millions of people supporting any given candidate, one can always find individuals that support your pre-conceived notions about that candidate’s supporters.
Every year our betters seem to think we need thousands of more pages of guidance (at the point of a gun) to live our life.
I don’t agree.
As far as freedom, Bilwick, how many pages of that guidance has Ted Cruz removed from our lives?
Among other things, he argued and won before the Supreme Court to have the Second Amendment declared an individual right, regardless of “militias.”
I wouldn’t have a problem with a Justice Cruz, assuming he is not suffering from a latent case of John Roberts Syndrome. I would also be good with an Attorney General Cruz.
I just haven’t seen anything in his performance as a Senator that gives me confidence that he will be an effective leader for the good guys.
“I just haven’t seen anything in his performance as a Senator that gives me confidence that he will be an effective leader for the good guys.”
Have you seen anything in Trump’s performance that gives you confidence he will be an effective leader for the good guys?
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, Trump is not the President I would build from scratch.
I don’t think any candidate has come close to truly understanding the challenges that we will face in the coming years. Or for that matter the challenges we face now.
Cruz’s stands on TPA/TPP and H1B visas, among other things, have done much to sour me on him.
Will Trump build the wall? I don’t know, but it is an easy marker. No way to weasel out of that. If he doesn’t people will turn on him quickly.
Will a wall solve all our problems? No.
We have a Washington, D.C. establishment (Democrats and Republicans) that spends more and more of our money to accomplish less and less. That thinks the solution to every problem is more laws, more regulations. That thinks it is normal and wise for too many government agencies to have their own police force. That is OK with seizing money and assets from people without charging them with crimes.
That is OK with continuing to send our sons and daughters to their deaths in foreign lands, with only increasing chaos to show for their half-measures.
Do I think Trump will save the Republic? No. But that’s not his job. It is ours.
I don’t see a way to save the Republic by continuing to vote for those that have demonstrated their indifference to its pain.
I asked:
“Have you seen anything in Trump’s performance that gives you confidence he will be an effective leader for the good guys?”
You, Tom, answered:
“Trump is not the President I would build from scratch.”
“Will Trump build the wall? I don’t know, …”
“Do I think Trump will save the Republic? No.”
So basically your answer is:
No. You’ve seen nothing in Trump’s performance that gives you confidence he will be an effective leader.
Neither do I. I see a lot that tells me he won’t.
But more important is this part of your answer:
“Will Trump build the wall? I don’t know, but it is an easy marker. No way to weasel out of that. If he doesn’t people will turn on him quickly. ”
But when you find out that he doesn’t, it’s far far far too late. We’ve suffered through 8 years of GOPe fecklessness. We learned, too late, that they spoke one game and played another.
And this is KEY – that is the whole argument for Trump….that we’ve been disappointed time after time after time by the GOPe.
You are actually contradicting the entire justification for Trump.
I don’t want to wait until it’s too late.
I don’t want another major disappointment.
Trump has given me overwhelming evidence that he has no idea what he will do or why he will do it. He has proven to my by his myriad of flip flops that he would disappoint me if I expected him to govern as a conservative. Or even a moderately sentient being.
Cruz, on the other hand has stuck a finger in the eye of the GOPe several times. He has defended my liberty on the correct side in front of the Supreme Court 8 times.
All indications are that he’s pretty smart.
I’ll go with what I know.
early favorite of mine, has become less and less attractive as I learn more about him and his ways.
I feel the same about Trump. Speaking of gnashing of teeth and clutching of pearls, Cruz’s way is simply to follow the rules of the primary, and that seems to be so dishonorable to Trump supporters. The more I hear this complaint, the more I get the sense that Trump supporters are Low Information Voters, because they seem not to understand the basics of delegate and convention system.
I guess I know it because I worked a convention. But Limbaugh has been explaining it for at least a month now. He did it again today. If what Cruz is doing is dishonorable, then all 3 person races in which not one can reach a majority in the first ballot would be deadlocked. There is one alternative, Trump gets a rule change that after the first vote, then the person with the highest vote total wins. That’s not the rules, but that seems to be what Trump supporters think are the rules.
There’s another concept that isn’t the rules. That after the first vote, the top two continue to the next vote. Neither Trump or Cruz has ever had a majority. Would it really be dishonorable if the supporters of the third/fourth/fifth, etc candidates shifted their vote to either Trump or Cruz? Is it just dishonorable if a person, within the rules, asks those other delegate supporters to come to his side after the first vote?
At this point, I find myself in a minority. Nearly half the voting population will support Hillary or Sanders; and their is a large number within the other half that has no understanding of what a Republic is. If you think what Colorado did is wrong, you can’t convince me your are a Republican.
As for me I’m neither Republican nor Democrat. I personally don’t have any issue with Cruz working the delegate allocations. As you mentioned he’s following the rules.
The Republican Party is not a government. They are free to set their own rules and processes for nominating a candidate for President.
I am free to vote for their candidate or not.
The problem isn’t really the rules and processes used by Colorado, the problem is that the people of Colorado – and the other 56 states – keep sending the wrong kind of representatives to Washington D.C.
That is if you are truly interested in keeping the Republic.
–Leland
April 25, 2016 at 5:23 PM
early favorite of mine, has become less and less attractive as I learn more about him and his ways.
I feel the same about Trump. Speaking of gnashing of teeth and clutching of pearls, Cruz’s way is simply to follow the rules of the primary, and that seems to be so dishonorable to Trump supporters. The more I hear this complaint, the more I get the sense that Trump supporters are Low Information Voters, because they seem not to understand the basics of delegate and convention system. —
Well, there is this article:
“The chairwoman of the Boulder County GOP has admitted that grave errors affected the Colorado Republican caucus, in which Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) won a clean sweep of 34 delegates without opening up the process to voting by everyday citizens.”
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/25/colorado-3/
“Breitbart News has obtained an email that Boulder County GOP chairwoman Peg Cage sent to other top Republican officials in Colorado, including to other party chairs, describing the errors in the process that led to “the perception of fraud.” Reached for comment on the email, Cage said that the caucus might have to be done over.”
You did read the whole thing, including the quote from the Trump campaign that they will not contest the CO-delegates. This is exactly the stuff that turns me off of Trump. It is not him or his staff, but his supporters. 2 paragraphs on a nothing burger, far more paragraphs from Breitbart quoting a single source who seemed more upset that the Colorado SecState took a side at the Party’s state convention.
–Leland
April 26, 2016 at 6:38 AM
You did read the whole thing, including the quote from the Trump campaign that they will not contest the CO-delegates. This is exactly the stuff that turns me off of Trump. It is not him or his staff, but his supporters–
You don’t like hard working American?
I have problems with Trump and his campaign, but not with his supporters. My problem with Trump and his campaign is he might not utterly destroy Clinton.
I realize that only reason Clinton is a threat is because of her powerful campaign team. Which could easily switch to supporting Bernie were Clinton to lose the primary- and with Bernie the idiot, it could probably do better as compared the extra trouble of dealing with the dead weight of Clinton.
As for CO, it’s CO vs Cruz not CO vs Trump or the other candidate. Or question is did or did not Cruz screw CO.
You don’t like hard working American?
This rebuttal to my argument is the quality of what Jim or Bob provides day in and day out. You didn’t refute anything. You simply made a strawman and got all gleeful at the thought of watching it burn. That includes the bit about Colorado.
Cruz’s way is simply to follow the rules of the primary, and that seems to be so dishonorable to Trump supporters
The dishonorable thing is pretending that voting matters to keep the rabble quiet. According to the ‘rules’ all states could do what CO did. Why don’t they? You know the answer.
Let’s not pretend there are rules either. This is politics.
This stuff is just boring. See how easy it is to play this game: “According to the ‘rules’ all states could do what IA did. Why don’t they? You know the answer.” Yes I do and already provided it.
Leland, I got your point. I can’t believe you didn’t get mine.
You talk about low info voters, but you are also well aware of the low info talking heads. Knowing how something works is no cause for arrogance. People generally look into things once it pops up on their radar. It’s poppin’ like corn these days.
This has been an awakening. If Cruz gets the nomination and somehow goes on to win we’re back on track for more of the same. It doesn’t matter if he’s mister wonderful. He’s not going to change the trends.
Trump has shown he can get beyond the typical media attacks. They not only can’t believe the un-pc things he says. They really can’t believe their attacks aren’t working.
When you look at his un-pc statements you find truth you agree with (even being embarrassed you do.) He’s not very eloquent… he just happens to be right more often than not (every candidate has not elements… you have to pick what’s important.)
Trump is shaking things up where the others are just more of the same.
As for Cruz defending our 2nd amendment… good, it shouldn’t be that hard to make the true argument. Hillary is a lawyer too. That she can keep herself out of prison is a much more impressive feat.
He’s not very eloquent
He babbles like a crazy person. Go look at a transcript of his repetitive ramblings.
As for Cruz defending our 2nd amendment… good, it shouldn’t be that hard to make the true argument.
And yet no one else one did it before the Supreme Court before he did, and many predicted he would fail. It shocked the (ignorant and biased) academic legal world. So this nonsense that he won’t roll back government, and won’t protect our liberty is just that. Trump seems to want bigger government; he just wants to be in charge of it. Cruz has the Constitution memorized; Trump has never read it.
He babbles like a crazy person.
Sadly true. Yet he still has the most support. What are you missing?
We aren’t missing anything. It’s the people willing to vote for a con artist who babbles like a crazy person who are missing something.
It’s the people willing to vote for a con artist who babbles like a crazy person who are missing something.
If that’s true our founders blew it (trusting ‘We the people.’) Perhaps they should have just set up another monarchy?
Humility requires us to consider what we don’t believe. Does Occam’s razer help?
Millions of people are conned *or* are voting for the first time because someone is finally (if inarticulacy) representing their un-pc issues?
“But Donald Trump would destroy the Western alliance and the world economy.”
No he won’t. I’m a Cruz guy but Donald is just talking about making the Eurotrash pony up for their own damn defense and negotiating better trade deals. He understands money too well to sign another Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. The 20% China tariff talk is just an opening gambit. It’ll never happen.
Few of our NATO partners spend the required % of GDP on defense. Many of these countries’ militaries are in a terrible state of readiness.
A crook, a con-man, a communist, and a constitutionalist, and the country is having a hard time making up its mind.
For months now, I’ve been having a hard time describing my reaction – we really need a word that bridges “bemused” and “apalled”.
Of course it doesn’t help that most of the national media are gleefully promoting the con-man because they’re sure he’ll lose to their crook, and much of the rest are gleefully promoting him because, well, actually I have no idea why. They’re selling their souls for viewers? They’ve been conned? Both?
I’ve been waiting for buyer’s remorse to set in – people he sells things to get to experience that a lot – but so far, only hints of it, no more.
Assuming the con-man fails to skin-of-his-teeth a first-ballot win, my take on the Convention’s options is that something like 75% of the Republican electorate clearly wants an anti-establishment candidate, and the Convention delegates seem likely to roughly reflect this. Unless the constitutionalist’s stealth legions of second-ballot supporters are grossly exaggerated and the Convention bogs down in prolonged indecision, I’d say the chances of parachuting in some establishment type are nil.
Whoever emerges, the party will then be badly divided and in need of Yorktown-after-Coral-Sea level fast repair. An establishment parachutist would start with ~25%, the con-man with ~40%, the constitutionalist with his current share plus the establishment for ~60%. All big holes to dig out of over a few months.
The only good news is, whatever happens at the Convention, the crook should prove to be a great clarifier of Republican minds.
This is a bunch of Kabuki theater, people desperately trying to eke out a win at the last minute by conjuring up a threat that they and their vast sea of compadres won’t show up to the polls if their candidate isn’t selected.
I’m pretty sure the disastrous prospect of HRC as CinC will focus minds when the time comes. In the meantime, it’s just posturing, and it’s getting annoying.
the national socialist Donald Trump
Calling Donald a nazi doesn’t do much for credibility. They’ve lost it.
I’ve come to not like Cruz, but would take him in a nanosecond over Clinton.
Trump has a great thing for our country regardless of the result. He’s pulled the curtain back.
You can’t have it both ways, Ken. Trumpets can threaten violence against opposition delegates (and George has just added cannibalism to the nutter mix) *or* you can whine about how it’s unkind that people compare you to Nazis. Not both.
With millions of people some may be violent. The amazing thing is the vast majority are angry but not violent.
Confrontation does not mean violence (of course it’s possible, but these are mostly decent common people.)
Nazis were a level of evil on par with Islam (fellow travelers.) Accusing Trump of this is nuts, but let’s go there.
Trump has talked about going after the families of terrorists. Very un-pc and shocking… until you look into the fact that these family members (not all) are enablers. They are part of the problem. They may not be jihadis themselves but dance in the streets when the towers came down.
Lots of civilians died in WW2. Should we not have fought? That would have been the uncivilized thing to do.
War is evil. Avoiding war at all costs is more evil. Fighting a pc war is more evil still.
War should be violent and quick because that saves lives and resolves issues so they don’t fester. We nuked Japan into our friends. Saving their lives.
We are at war right now. It’s a war of ideology and we’re losing.
Our own countrymen are the enemy and we are recruiting more. PC IS KILLING US. Being last to die is no security.
To counter that, boorish clowns (in our history) have served us well. Patton and Grant come to mind but there were many others.
Give me a break, Ken. You aren’t against political correctness. You just want to be the one who defines what is politically correct.
Any time someone criticizes your candidate, you whine about how it’s politically incorrect to call a racist a racist, a fascist a fascist, a misogynist a misogynist…
Yes, millions of people died during World War II. A lot of them died in support of tin-pot dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo. So what? Millions of people died to stop Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo — so that we can have the right to criticize your idol. We don’t owe you a dictator.
If you think the only options are war and Emperor Trump, you’re even more deluded than usual. But if the choice ever comes down to that, I’ll vote for war. “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.”
You aren’t against political correctness. You just want to be the one who defines what is politically correct. …you whine about…
Calling the kettle black I see.
…how it’s politically incorrect to call a racist a racist, a fascist a fascist, a misogynist a misogynist
If he were any of those three I would agree with you. It is lie to accuse him of referring to all of some group when he clearly and correctly identifies a [large] subset of a group as being a problem.
Are you going to claim that no illegals are also dangerous criminals?
Are you going to claim that no Muslims adhere to sharia and Islam?
Are you saying Rosie is not a fat cow?
“I’m pretty sure the disastrous prospect of HRC as CinC will focus minds when the time comes.”
Disastrous in what way? In being pacifist and isolationist or in being hawkish and interventionist?
Something tells me Secretary Clinton is as hawkish and interventionist if not more so than anyone in the Democratic Party, or in the Obama Administration for that matters. I would classify Vice President Biden along with presidential confidant Valerie Jarrett as being on the dovish side with Hillary Clinton being the lead hawk along with more minor administration officials.
The problem as Commander-in-Chief is that Ms. Clinton has a kind of 60’s Hippie anti-cop anti-soldier ‘tude as manifest by some of the accounts of her interactions with Secret Service personnel. It would be a strange mix of that with her sense of grievance-driven belligerence that I sense is “personal.” This Julian Assange fellow languishing in some kind of sanctuary limbo from the long-arm of (Swedish law!) appears to be at the receiving end of this.
It would be a strange mix of not garnering the respect of the military along with an instinct to put the men and women at arms in harms way?
” In being pacifist and isolationist or in being hawkish and interventionist?”
Both. And, at precisely the wrong times in the wrong mix. And, that’s just the hash she would make of foreign policy.
“But Donald Trump would destroy the Western alliance and the world economy.”
Oh please. This is overwrought. Note that Obama has spent the last eight years insulting allies and bowing to dictators., as well as more than doubling the national debt.
Ya, it would be hard to out do Obama on dismantling the Pax Americana.
I’m pretty sure Trump wouldn’t be bowing to dictators. I wouldn’t rule out him insulting allies.
Well said, Peter.
I’m pretty sure Trump wouldn’t be bowing to dictators.
Being sure of something does not make you right. Trump has been bowing down to Putin for some time. His favorite foreign leader.
It’s a different kind of bow. There was a funny comedian I saw the other night. He’s black, so he can say these things.
He was noting how white guys, when they meet each other, bob their heads down, in a sort of vestigial bow. Black guys, on the other hand, bob their heads up, communicating wariness.
Trump is bowing up to Putin, in acknowledgement of a worthy adversary, and notification that he is not going to be a pushover like others who could be mentioned.
So either Trump destroys the GOPe, or it destroys itself. I can live with that.
I’m pretty far right. I know Trump is not. But he’s the only one addressing immigration as the most serious issue. I do not believe any of the others will do anything except follow the status quo there; perhaps Trump will also, in the end… but he’s the only one I believe might actually do something significant.
I get the “republic” post, but the way it’s being done smells really bad. It’s the shell of a representative republic when the voters vote for nearly anonymous delegates who get strong-armed by the party apparatus. People can point to rule 37.1.(a) in the GOP rulebook for some state, but what people see is, voters didn’t get to vote, but Cruz got all the delegates. It only reinforces the impression of a corrupt system led by disdainful people. Trump supporters already feel largely disenfranchised, and these tactics only reinforce that opinion.
And, please… Trump’s not going to go and destroy the world in a fit of ignorance. Like any president, day-to-day decisions will be handled by appointed people or the faceless minions of the Federal bureaucracy. And when Trump decides to get personally involved, his actions won’t be malicious, unlike the current occupant’s. I may not agree with them, but he won’t be trying to shiv the country in the kidneys.
So don’t blame the Trump supporters when Hillary is sworn in next January. You’ll get your “anybody but Trump,” if that’s what you really want.
But he’s the only one addressing immigration as the most serious issue.
No, he’s the only one bullshitting you to think that he is, or at least, that he’ll seriously do anything about it if he’s elected. He’s just telling you want he thinks you want to hear.
I have no idea what Trump would do as president, and if you think you do, you’re fooling yourself. I don’t think he knows himself. As his new campaign manager told the RNC, it’s “just an act.”
The GOP should have anticipated this outcome when it decided to make this election about stopping immigration rather than shrinking the size of government. At that point, Know Nothings naturally migrated to the most extreme spokesman, as they’ve done in the past. Those who sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind.
The GOP should have anticipated this outcome when it decided to make this election about stopping immigration rather than shrinking the size of government.
When did “the GOP” do that?
I could link to about a hundred xenophobic articles that you’ve linked to, but what’s the point? You know perfectly well that this election cycle has been dominated by immigrant bashing. You’re playing your little “A is not A” word game again, just like when you claim you aren’t writing a book about your plan to fix NASA.
I’m not going to play this time.
Rand Simberg: “A is not A!”
What do “xenophobic articles” that I link to (not that I’m aware of any) have to do with “the GOP”?
But he never actually ran, for either party, until last year.
So he repeatedly flirts with running as a Republican, endorses the Republican nominee, and finally actually does run — very successfully — as a Republican, winning endorsements from a number of national Republican leaders, and your conclusion is that he’s a Democrat?!?
How many Democrats served on Reagan’s finance committee? How many Democrats endorsed Mitt Romney? How many Democrats have been endorsed by Chris Christie, Jeff Sessions, Scott Brown, Pat Buchanan, Ben Carson, Duncan Hunter, Rick Scott, Sarah Palin, Jan Brewer, Paul LePage, and Kris Kobach?
Donald Trump may not be an orthodox, by-the-book Republican, but he most certainly is not a Democrat.
What do “xenophobic articles” that I link to (not that I’m aware of any) have to do with “the GOP”?
The majority of those articles are written by prominent Republicans. As you know very well, even if you pretend not to. (And now you will make the usual inane comment about riding your mind.)
This “A is not A” game of yours is growing tiresome.
And just as many “prominent Republicans” (like Marco Rubio) favor amnesty (#ProTip: This is one of the things that led to the rise of Trump). “The GOP” doesn’t have a position, though it may at the convention.
He isn’t a Democrat. He’s a Northeast Republican (see also: Chris Christie, Paul LePage, Rudy Giuliani,
You’re unfamiliar with the history of New York politics. Giuliani is a phony Republican just like Trump.
Rand, even Ron Paul takes an anti-libertarian position when it comes to immigration, and a strong Constitutionalist like Ted Cruz is willing to ignore the Constitution on this issue. As for Rubio, how many times have you (and others) called him a Republican In Name Only because of his soft line on immigration? Now, you’re suddenly holding him up as an exemplar of the GOP?
Yes, I know. “A is not A.”
But voters sometimes think A is A. Recent immigrants hear numerous Republican politicians, candidates, and commentators (not just one exemplar) calling for discriminatory policies. They decide (surprise!) that the GOP is not for them. While hatemongers like Donald Trump begin migrating toward the Republican Party.
All of which was completely predictable. Being a little bit xenophobic is like being a little bit pregnant. Those who sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind.
Sorry, Ed, but regardless of your fantasies (and regardless of economic fallacies), none of this is about “xenophobia,” or “hate.” That’s the talk of the leftists.
Yes, Rand, I know. But xenophobia used to be known as xenophobia, before you made your “A is not A” discovery and started rewriting the English language.
I find being accused of “xenophobia” because someone disagrees with me just as reprehensible and vile as accusations of racism.
when it decided to make this election about stopping immigration rather than shrinking the size of government
The GOP didn’t do that, GOP primary voters did. Shrinking the size of government has never been a core concern for most of the people pulling the lever for GOP candidates.
The GOP is focused on cutting marginal tax rates and business regulation. A large segment of the GOP electorate is focused on other things, like stopping immigration and competition from foreign trade. Thus, Trump.
A large segment of the GOP electorate is focused on other things, like stopping immigration and competition from foreign trade.
Also a large segment of the Democrat electorate. He wouldn’t have gotten to where he is without their votes in open or flexible primaries.
Haven’t Trump’s biggest wins (NY, FL, LA, AZ) come in closed primaries? Isn’t he expected to sweep today’s closed primaries in CT, DE, MD, and PA? Hasn’t Trump been winning every national poll of registered Republicans for nearly a year?
It might be comforting to blame Trump on Democrats, but the facts argue otherwise.
He wouldn’t have had his early wins, and momentum to get here, without Democrat votes.
He wouldn’t have had his early wins, and momentum to get here
Huh? He has lead the GOP polls since long before the voting started. He came in second in Iowa, and it didn’t keep him from winning the following contests by big margins.
Trump isn’t ahead because of open primaries. He’s ahead because he is more popular with GOP voters than any other candidate.
He’s “led” from the beginning, but only because it was such a wide field. And he “led” because he picked up a lot of Democrat votes in the outset that the other candidates would never have gotten. Because he’s a Democrat, with appeal to blue-collar Democrats.
He isn’t a Democrat. He’s a Northeast Republican (see also: Chris Christie, Paul LePage, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Charlie Baker, George Pataki). That may be an exotic species to those west of Buffalo, but it’s an actual thing, and not at all the same thing as a Democrat. Northeast Republicans disagree with each other and other Republicans about various things, but the one thing they’re sure about is that they aren’t Democrats.
He’s a Northeast Republican
Where is the evidence that he’s ever been a Republican prior to his running last year? There’s plenty to the contrary.
Where is the evidence?
Cruz provided it by referring to NY values. Some of Trumps conservative views go back two decades or more.
Where is the evidence that he’s ever been a Republican prior to his running last year?
There’s plenty:
* In 1979-80, when he was on the Reagan Finance Committee
* In 1987, when he went on Donahue to blast Democratic Major of New York Ed Koch, and got a letter from Richard Nixon encouraging him to run for office
* In 1988, when he tried to get himself considered as a possible running mate for George H.W. Bush
* In 2006 and 2014 when he flirted with running for Governor of NY as a Republican
* In 2011-12, when he flirted with running for President (as a Republican) and endorsed Mitt Romney
He also flirted with running for President as a Reform Party candidate, but I don’t think he ever considered running for anything as a Democrat.
But he never actually ran, for either party, until last year. How much money do other “Republicans” donate to Hillary and other Democrats?
This is wild. I’m agreeing with Jim and Rand is agreeing with Bob. Hell is freezing and pigs are flying.
Are we having fun?
How much money do other “Republicans” donate to Hillary and other Democrats?
Do all the people that love and respect you, buy your book and read your blog, always agree with you?
You choose not to believe his explanation that he was just doing business. Very successful business.
What business was he doing that required giving money to Hillary?
Probably some overseas business. You have to pay off Hillary to get anything approved.
Cruz provided it by referring to NY values. Some of Trumps conservative views go back two decades or more.
Ken, that quote (which originally came from Trump, not Cruz) referred to his support of partial-birth abortion.
If you think partial-birth abortion is a conservative value, you don’t know what the word means.
A large segment of the GOP electorate is focused on other things, like stopping immigration and competition from foreign trade.
Also a large segment of the Democrat electorate.
But there’s a difference. Whatever the rank and file might think, Democrat Party leaders looked at the demographics and decided it was better to woo new immigrants than pander to the xenophobes.
They also judged (correctly) that the GOP would react by attacking recent immigrants, on the grounds of “if the Democrats are for it, we must be against it.” Thus driving those groups solidly into the Democrat column.
If the GOP had embraced new immigrant groups (As Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp advocated), it would be in much better shape right now. But, as usual, the Stupid Party was outmaneuvered by the Democrats.
Ken, that quote (which originally came from Trump, not Cruz) referred to his support of partial-birth abortion.
Cruz alluded to NY values (liberal values) first as an attack on Trump (along with other mischaracterizations that won him the title lyin’ Ted.) That abortion issue goes back more than 15 years. Trump, rather than being an authoritarian, believes people should make their own choices, but changed his mind with regard to abortion soon after the question was put to him.
This is typical Trump, giving an off the cuff answer, then doing the research. I wish he’d defer these questions until after te research, but that’s who he is. You get him uncensored.
Trump believes people should make their own choices? How, exactly, does a newborn baby “make his own choice”?
Let me guess: your definition of “people” excludes babies?
You ‘re certainly fluent in TrumpSpeak. Anyone who believes in human life is an “authoritarian.” (Except when Trump changes tactics and pretends to be anti-abortion — that can be forgiven because you know he isn’t being honest.) Murdering newborn babies is “choice.” Telling the truth about Trump’s record is “lying’,” but Trump’s constant stream of falsehoods is merely “giving an off the cuff answer.” Threatening your opponent’s delegates and their families is just good clean fun. And accepting endorsements from a white supremacist and a black rapist shows that he’s inclusive, I suppose?
Thanks for demonstrating, once again, how conservative Trump voters *aren’t*.
Ed, I’m pretty sure that Jim is not a “Trump voter.” Has it ever occurred to you to pay attention to what people write, and think before posting?
Ed, I’m pretty sure that Jim is not a “Trump voter.”
I have no reason to believe that Ken is Jim. (But I suppose that follows from your “A is not A” premise.)
Has it ever occurred to you to pay attention to what people write, and think before posting?
Yes. Has it occurred to you to do the same?
Murdering newborn babies is “choice.”
Murder is a choice. It’s baked into the definition. Otherwise it’s called manslaughter.
Trump, 15 years ago, wasn’t the only person to buy the women’s choice argument. But he changed his mind.
Telling the truth about Trump’s record is “lying’,
When he’s been singing a different tune for 15 years, but some claim it’s today’s position. Yes, that’s lying.
Even 15 years ago he said he didn’t like abortion, but should not tell a woman what she should do. Remember the narrative (“it’s only tissue.”)
Trump has since learned but some are unwilling to give him credit. How many decades and actions does it take to believe him?
And now, of course, Trump is saying the act is not an act and Manafort overstepped his boundaries and is on TV too much and is using the candidacy to rebuild his own fortunes etc etc etc.
This is a tiny hint of what you would see with a Trump Presidency.
Trump has been flip flopping over many issues in the past couple of weeks. He blathers…steps on a land mine…..gets called out…..walks it back.
So Rand is right…if you think you know how Trump will behave and what he’ll do as President…you are fooling yourself.
–So Rand is right…if you think you know how Trump will behave and what he’ll do as President…you are fooling yourself.–
Well according to Trump when he is presidential, he will be very dull and people will fall asleep.
This could be a good thing as compared to Trump on the campaign in which, the news is all about Trump. And with old people in Rhode island running after him as though they were crazy fans of a rock star.
“I’m no ‘Trumkin’, whatever that means. . . .”
Yes , it’s such an esoteric, arcane, hard-to-fathom expression! What could it possibly mean?
(Actually a typo for “Trumpkin.”)
Yeah, Lyin Cruz is ok, but don’t dare mock Trump supporters. I wonder how many Trump supporters still believe the Cruz infidelity, and don’t seem to recall that Trump is on his third marriage.
Apparently mocking (whomever) is fun. I don’t expect it to diminish from any sources. I’ve always enjoyed yours (even if I’m the target… yes, you are that good!)
So mock away, but keep solid footing. Trump has unhinged many.
he’s the only one bullshitting you
I’m quite sure there’s plenty of manure being spread from many sources.
Still waiting for some Trumkin, somewhere, showing me that Trump is more pro-freedom than Cruz.
I’ll take a shot. Cruz is like Hillary, both are good lawyers. They both want to make rules for others to follow. Neither gets the 10th amendment and the presumption of liberty.
If Trump is as incompetent as some claim (against evidence) that’s good for liberty. Taking away liberty requires knowing how.
Dismantling govt. is good for liberty. Cruz the constitutional lawyer (like Obama?) is all about using the rules. Liberty is living (mostly) without other peoples rules. What’s known as unenumerated rights.
Trump focuses on single issues, not overall rules for everyone to follow. They accused Reagan of being an idiot-evil genius. Ok, he’s no Reagan, but there are similarities.
It’s great if Cruz fights for our rights. But he can just as easily fight against our liberties. It’s just a game to lawyers.
It’s like his legal brief in Texas arguing that we have no due process right to stimulate our genitals, something even the Founders’ own ministers would have found absurd.
Or in the back and forth debates with Rubio over the gang of eight bill. Time and again you find out that Cruz’s heartfelt argument for X was actually a brilliant legal strategy for NOT X. He always seems to be doing the opposite of what he seems to be doing, which is the opposite of what it seems. He takes delight in cleverly outsmarting people, and that is not the kind of person I would ever trust.
In response to Gregg above (since I can’t reply there):
You said “But when you find out that he (Trump) doesn’t, it’s far far far too late. We’ve suffered through 8 years of GOPe fecklessness. We learned, too late, that they spoke one game and played another.”
I believe it is already too late.
I believe the fecklessness of the GOPe (and establishment in general) has gone on much longer than eight years.
I am not as convinced as you that Ted Cruz is not part of the establishment.
If all a President Trump accomplishes is that he forces our representatives in Congress to find their testicles I would consider it a win.
If I somehow could make one wish come true it wouldn’t be to elect Donald Trump.
It would be to send Congress home.
Implement remote work for Congress and force each Representative to work from an open office in their own district. Force each Senator to work from an office in their state capitol. Do all voting remotely.
No panacea, but perhaps a step in returning power to the people.
Ted Cruz is part of the establishment.
Absolutely, while pretending he isn’t. Leave his wife alone? That would be like pretending Bill wasn’t married to Hillary.
I am not as convinced as you that Ted Cruz is not part of the establishment.
I don’t think that anyone who was part of the establishment would be so hated by the establishment.
“I don’t think that anyone who was part of the establishment would be so hated by the establishment.”
I think the hate may have more to do with his personality.
Again, I think Cruz would be perfectly fine playing a role suited to his strengths. Justice. AG. But not every issue is a constitutional issue. That is where he falls short in my eyes.
He is not my first choice to lead the country.
The hate has to do with his continually fighting the establishment, including filibusters and “government shutdowns,” as a senator.
continually fighting the establishment
In other words, not what Reagan did with Tip O’neal.
Reagan and Tip O’Neill were from opposite parties. Not sure what you’re talking about here.
I used to think that.
Reagan and Tip O’Neill were from opposite parties.
Exactly my point. They worked together making sausage.
Sorry, this was a complete non sequitur in a discussion about Cruz and the GOPe.
I used to think that.
So cynical… but true.
this was a complete non sequitur
I was referring to *establishment* more than party (much as they are alike.) But yes, I confused some issues. mea culpa.
Weird but true. People that know Cruz say two things about him… very smart and very unlikable. But the fact is, he and his wife have been playing on the inside from the beginning.
Trump got his start from family money. Cruz got his money from you.
How did Cruz get his money from me?
Like the left, which could not survive without funneling tax money, Cruz got money from govt. connection laundered through banks his wife worked for. That’s your tax money (with enough indirection to be deniable.)
What business was he doing that required giving money to Hillary?
The nature of these deals is we don’t know; however, simple access to those around the Clintons would be enough justification.
If they involve the Clintons, the nature of the deals is likely shady.
Agreed.
Trump is no choir boy (nor are choir boys.)
US unions plan attack on Donald Trump
Union leaders are scared of him because their members might like him better than the union leaders, and the union leaders are all in bed with Democrats.
If a sizable percentage of union members switch parties, it’s over for Democrats in the rust belt and possibly large parts of the Northeast – for generations.
Union members, who own guns and drive pickup trucks, can see that the Democrats have culturally abandoned them, just as Southerners saw back in the 1990’s and early 2000’s.
That will further make their party one of wacko campus activists, socialists, minorities, and illegals and they’ll have trouble getting anyone elected outside of big city hippy liberal areas.
Add another to the long list of all the right enemies.
And now Cruz has selected Carly Fiorina as his VP choice. I guess Fiorina does have some value as assassination insurance. But I’m not going to vote for Cruz with her around.