35 thoughts on “No, Mr. Trump”

  1. Word games. Yes, we are a republic but we call ourselves a democracy even claiming to promote that for other countries.

    Why vote? This cycle the fraud is being exposed. The purpose of voting is to keep the rabble quiet, but it’s not working this time.

    We all understand it’s about delegates, not voters. So why pretend it’s about voting? Why pretend there are rules? (subject to change as the game is being played.)

    Trump may lose. Republicans elites have totally exposed the fraud.

    1. Oh, even the Cruz people will get a big wake up call when the establishment doesn’t give the nomination to Cruz either because he’s not a native born citizen. Maybe the small percentage of Kasich supporters will be happy, assuming he gets nominated, but the nod might go to Romney.

      At that point, all pretense will be over and Republican rank and file will be down at the rope store buying rope.

  2. “Trump may lose. Republicans elites have totally exposed the fraud.”

    And he may win to spite them….even if he doesn’t get the required majority to win on the first ballot. The rabble they wish to keep quiet may not take to kindly to Trump not getting the nomination if say it is very close (to a Trump majority) delegate wise. Your average party boss elite type is a gutless weeney when confronted by an aroused very angry electorate. “Courage” of any sort is not their strong suit.

    1. It occurs to me that the Republican establishment may actually nominate Cruz as their best option, knowing he’s ineligible. If they bring it up at the Convention they will cause total chaos and Trump will probably get the nomination. But if they can stop Trump in the first round and get Cruz in, they can declare him the nominee and adjourn.

      Then they wait for a couple court rulings against Cruz’s eligibility, which is trivial for the establishment to engineer because the case is open and shut, and then there they will sit, feigning astonishment. The nominee will have to be replaced, but the convention is long over and Trump is off doing whatever Trump does when he’s not running for President.

      So in “desperation” at the unfortunate and unforeseen blow to Cruz’s candidacy (who could have seen that coming?!), they’ll be forced to pick a replacement, and it will look like their hands are clean.

      I’m betting that’s their current plan, and it’s a better strategy that trying to make the switch at the convention when too many unwashed people could weigh in or make a huge fuss.

  3. If we’re speaking of political party internal elections, the Republican party is actually more democratic than the Democrats, even though the Democrats make a big deal about being democratic. There is absolutely nothing democratic about superdeligates.

    As for the Republicans, Trump kind of has a point (sort of, in part); the current primary system is, in places, an utter mess. For example, Republicans in Colorado didn’t get to vote, but Democrats did. Republicans in Wyoming didn’t get to vote, but Democrats did. This is an absolute disgrace – and bad for the party.

    Where Trump is wrong (and whining) is that it’s all about him; it’s not. These problems in the Republican primary predate him. So too does the dirty business of manipulating delegate selection; Ron Paul is just one example of a candidate who made himself notorious in those grounds.

    Cruz has been slipping in the polls ever since the his delegate manipulations became major news. Essentially, any candidate playing that game gives themselves bad PR, and it’ll show – including in November.

    The Republican party needs to fix this mess, to keep it from poisoning future elections via souring voters on candidates. A good start would be that all a states’ delegates have to be first-round-committed as apportioned by whatever formula the state uses – no more uncommitted delegates unless that’s how the voters vote, and a state not holding a primary or caucuses gets no delegates.

    These changes should be a major part of this convention, and thus be in place for 2020. However, it’s too late for this year – the current rules should apply.

    1. I would suggest getting rid of delegates entirely. They’re just a failure point between the people and the choice the people want to make. We only have them because in the past there was no way to give everyone a voice in a dynamic, real-time selection process.

      But we have technology now, and assuming the security measures are tight enough, we could use an ap were everybody registers their slate and each voting round automatically whittles down the choices. The people could update their slate at any time. They could even slave their choice to someone they trust if they don’t want to bother watching all the nonsense where candidates give endless speeches.

      It would cut out everyone who is on the take or doing back room deals.

      1. Doing away with delegates is an interesting idea, George.

        Could it be done with a preferential voting system like the Aussies use; mark your first choice, second choice, 3rd choice, etc, in case your first choice drops out after you vote?

        1. Yes, it could mimic that quite closely, with the added feature that you could change your slate electronically as the campaign wears on, when various candidates say something utterly stupid and crash and burn.

          I would have had Rubio at the top, but after the New Hampshire debate would have thought of dropping him a notch if someone else did well (maybe Fiorina or Jindal moving up). You could add a #never____ feature, too.

          And the candidates and pundits would be on much firmer ground saying that most people are voting against candidate X, because they could see the slate tallies. You could even allow comments on why you feel a certain way, and if enough comments are similar the common thoughts could be turned into check boxes.

          I think it would make more people feel they’re in the game instead of watching it unfold, helplessly, and would remove the power party activists have to sway things. Often the activists are the fringes, not the base.

      2. Heh.
        “I would suggest getting rid of delegates entirely”

        “They could even slave their choice to someone they trust if they don’t want to bother watching all the nonsense where candidates give endless speeches”

        What you speak of is a delegate. And no, they weren’t created merely due to the inconvenience of voting. They were created to make us slightly more protected against populist demagogues, the precise type of politicians that tore down the Roman republic, by removing direct voting power from the populace.

        A smaller group of trusted individuals is easier to target and convince with reason than a larger.

        1. Yes, but delegates are easily bought. The campaigns now cost hundreds of millions of dollars. We’ve sent state representatives to jail for selling their votes on legislation for $500. The campaigns are free to pay for delegates airfare and accommodations. That will sway some, but I’m sure the campaigns will spend far more than that, using carrots and sticks to get their way.

          Bribing a couple hundred ordinary party activists is cheap. Bribing a couple million people who don’t have so much free time is all but impossible.

          Keep in mind that Trump might throw some serious money at the delegate, on top of promising then lord knows what positions. He’s says the system is corrupt, and he might well decide to prove it.

          1. But aren’t you saying everyone vote electronically? It might be pretty easy to bribe primary voters or at least people who act as collectors of other people’s votes.

          2. My thought is that there’d be simply too many primary voters to bribe. Once some kind of webpage or ap is written, people wouldn’t have to take off work on a Tuesday and stand in line for an hour.

            Sure, you’d have to guard against hacking and the like, just as we see with all the fake Twitter followers, but it might have advantages. It could be launched in a couple of states with pledged delegates as a test run to shake out the bugs.

            The Democrats might adopt the system too, but of course they’ll hire the same company that made the Obamacare website and crash and burn.

  5. “That a populist demagogue like Mr. Trump has so much support should raises concerns that Franklin’s fear is becoming true; a republic is lost when people ignorantly believe it should be a democracy.”

    The republic can not be lost because of any conceivable way of selecting candidates of a political party for presidency.
    And it seems the best way of selecting a primary candidate is to find a candidate with the most appeal of public which will subsequently vote for such a candidate to be the president.

    One could argue that a political party might or should want some military leader as candidate for US president. Because the president is the Commander in Chief. Therefore one might want a competent and proven, and popular military leader as something who is a candidate.
    But if one thought an important aspect for presidential candidate was related to business matters one could instead select a business leader who was competent and popular.
    Anyhow it seems the voters are selecting a business leaders- and being a popular business leader would be good idea.
    Of course republican party could select a candidate is any fashion it wanted, but it seems that the republican party has devised a system in is weighted to towards finding the most popular leader it can- and so therefore should add considerable weight to how many people voted for primary candidate though they should be particularly interested the most popular candidate in states which are swing states. Assuming they want a candidate which wins the general election.

  6. In theory, this whole rigamarole should be educating people about basic civics after generations of being failed by government education. Parties are not a public utility; they are private organizations designed to serve committed members — members whose involvement goes beyond merely telling the voter registrar which party’s primary ballot you want to be given every other year (because most primaries are state/congressional, not presidential, but only active voters would ever know that).

    I actually agree with those who complain about presidential primaries being a scam, because that is exactly what they are — especially open primaries. I’ve lived in three states, only one of which didn’t have a presidential primary vote at the time.

    Alaska’s Republican Party was a mess then as it is now, but the typical Republican voter was more likely to be engaged and active in the party’s inner workings than in either of the primary states I’ve lived in. The result was that most Alaska Republicans qualified as Trumpers’ reviled “insiders.”

    Simply put, if you want a political party to stand for something, it needs to have its nominee-selection process limited to committed party voters, not day-of low-information reality-show-viewers off the street. The same people who claim the GOP is corrupt and rigged and doesn’t stand for anything are the idiots who now want it to be even less able to stand for anything except the mindless roar of the mob.

    If they succeed, they will of course blame the consequent disaster on the very same political “insiders” who have been trying to get the party back on track, but whom they drove out of the party in a fit of limbic rage.

    1. Mac, a good comment! (Not saying I agree, but I think you have a very defendable and coherent argument.) But if the GOP agrees with you, they aren’t very clear about it.

      Here is the preamble to the rules produced at the 2012 Republican Convention:

      BE IT RESOLVED, That the Republican Party is the party of the open door. Ours is the party of liberty, the party of equality, of opportunity for all, and favoritism for none.

      It is the intent and purpose of these rules to encourage and allow the broadest possible participation of all voters in Republican Party activities at all levels and to assure that the Republican Party is open and accessible to all Americans.

      The preamble is actually consistent with your position, but I think it would be easy for someone to see the preamble as actually quite opposed to the spirit of your comment. It would be easy to see the preamble as being inclusive to, say, a voter who showed up to vote for Trump this year, and who won’t otherwise participate this year, and who hasn’t voted or in any other way participated in the Republican party in the last 30 years.

    2. –Simply put, if you want a political party to stand for something, it needs to have its nominee-selection process limited to committed party voters, not day-of low-information reality-show-viewers off the street. The same people who claim the GOP is corrupt and rigged and doesn’t stand for anything are the idiots who now want it to be even less able to stand for anything except the mindless roar of the mob.–

      All politics is corrupt and rigged. There is no instance anywhere and anytime of it not being. But it seems a goal could be to have it less corrupt and rigged rather than more corrupt and rigged.

      The tendency is for political systems to become increasingly corrupt.
      And rigged is related to an effort to make it easier. Human will tend to want to expend less energy to accomplish something- hence have it rigged.
      So one should seek mechanisms to counteract the tendency to become increasingly corrupt and having rigged systems. And one way is to bend to the roar of the mob or be required to make the mob roar about something.
      A question is what can you make the mob roar about- free stuff?? Or chance to work or work toward something [like being great]?

      1. a goal could be to have it less corrupt and rigged

        The problem is you can never know a person’s heart. I believe Trump is sincere about wanting to revitalize America, but Rand could be right that I’m just the mark of a huckster. (I’m not so easily fooled however.)

        OTOH, Cruz has proven his vile nature. It’s time we had a president that wasn’t a lawyer even if less competent.

        Trump makes mistakes. I like that about him.

          1. When he filed a Texas brief saying “There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one’s genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship,” and arguing that the state had police power to protect public morals in such matters.

            That’s not a person you want in a law office, much less high office.

          2. I must have missed that.

            People do. It’s very common.

            Being wrong is not the same as lying. Cruz lies fully knowing he is. Details are available if you care.

            Trump is not the genius he thinks he is. I judge his sincerity in those areas I find important (almost nobody is sincere about everything. This is a common human failing.)

            Cruz has consistently changed his positions from those he had and fought for less than a year ago to those he sees Trump taking. He’s a lying snake.

            Trump has said stupid things, but we know about them. He’s not fooling anybody. Cruz has fooled people.

            Ben Carson understands this. He’s not a stupid man.

          4. If you visit this site:
            http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1263575.html
            and do a word search on the word “genital” (automatically including the plural form “genitals”, I hope)

            I think you’ll see the source of George Turner’s surprising claim.

            Snopes.com attempts to provide the context:
            http://www.snopes.com/ted-cruz-opposed-self-pleasuring/

            I think it is safe to say that Cruz didn’t actually write those words, he only supervised a lawyer who did, but I’m not completely sure. I’m also not sure what exactly Cruz’s team was trying to say. I provided the links. Maybe someone else can interpret them.

          6. It’s what he considered Constitutional that’s really scary.

            Personally he probably has no problem stimulating his own genitals. He just doesn’t want to let anyone else do the same, or reads that as the Constitutional position.

            The Constitution also doesn’t confer a due process right to poop, but I’m pretty sure all the Founders figured that fell under “liberty”.

        2. —ken anthony
          April 20, 2016 at 9:34 AM

          a goal could be to have it less corrupt and rigged

          The problem is you can never know a person’s heart. I believe Trump is sincere about wanting to revitalize America, but Rand could be right that I’m just the mark of a huckster. (I’m not so easily fooled however.)–
          Of course he is sincere but he is also a huckster, maybe even a con man. Obviously he is an ego manic.
          I think Trump is a dangerous man- which has good aspects as far as I am concerned. He is not dumb and has proven to be formidable.
          I see no reason to have pussy as president. Clinton is also dangerous- but abysmally and stupidly dangerous.
          And she is insane and evil. A cat lady who hates and murders cats.

          –OTOH, Cruz has proven his vile nature. It’s time we had a president that wasn’t a lawyer even if less competent.–

          I am not sure if Cruz has vile nature as compared to most lawyers. Though most lawyer can manage to act more pleasant.
          Cruz is an A student, intelligent, perhaps religious and certainly ambitious. But he has not shown himself to be national leader.
          Nor has Clinton demonstrated and unlikely to demonstrate any ability to lead. Though I think Clinton will be able murder Cruz in the election.
          If Cruz is elected, I don’t imagine he will get anything done- which would ok, if he was following a great president like Reagan. Instead Cruz would following a Carter, but worse than Carter- he will be following Obama, who is much worse than Carter. Carter with two terms and less competent and more corrupt.
          So I think if elected, Cruz would be a one term president- who might even manage to be impeached. I also think Trump could be a one term president. Or good news is probably anyone who is elected would be a one term president.
          I suspect republicans can also see that whoever is elected is going to have a hard time governing- and therefore this might be explanation for why the republican establishment appears to have death wish in terms of having any kind of electable candidate for president- ie,the apparent insane eagerness to have a contested convention.

  7. I’m up to 27 comments over in the Pajamas media thread, in a citizenship debate that must run for 60, I scrolled up and saw people talking smack about Rand in the later comments, and oops, I hadn’t looked at who wrote the piece! I thought you were just linking it.

    Perhaps I should smack some other people around till they behave.

  8. Comparing Cruz and Trump I’d say Cruz is smarter. That does not make him better. IQ is a highly over rated quality.

    Cruz is the much better liar. Trump’s mistakes demonstrate sincerity. Everybody has a core. Cruz doesn’t believe in the presumption of liberty. He’s a rules guy. In a sense no different from the left. Trump does believe in liberty which is exposed in his abortion position. He doesn’t like abortion, but doesn’t want the govt. telling people what to do. It’s what makes it an awkward question for him.

    Cruz is the (rare) sort of person who would carefully distinguish his personal views from what he would consider Constitutional.

    Without the presumption of liberty. You accuse Trump of just wanting power, but Cruz is the one that wants to control others. Trump just wants jobs to stay in the country.

      1. I have no idea what you’re talking about.

        That’s clear. Trump is a businessman focused on profit which is NOT about controlling others. Cruz is the one that wants to control people (via constitutional rules.)

        Cruz is following the Obama path… a quick trip through the senate then on to prez. Trump has supported others until Romney was the last straw, losing a race he should have won.

        You can’t see who the controlling personality is. Even the bathroom gender issue shows Trump doesn’t care to control others. I disagree with Trump on this, but it does show he’s not the authoritarian you think he is.

        Not understanding the presumption of liberty is a real failure for control freaks (left or right.)

        1. That’s clear. Trump is a businessman focused on profit which is NOT about controlling others.

          Really? Using eminent domain to steal a woman’s property to build a parking lot for your casino isn’t “about controlling others”?

          1. You know how I feel about eminent domain, but no, not really. That again was more about profit.

  9. Other than his surgical ability, [Ben Carson] doesn’t strike me as a very smart one.

    He doesn’t have to be universally smart to occasionally make astute observations. He has made quite a few astute observations worthy of reflection. Even if he makes statements you disagree with doesn’t mean you dismiss everything.

Comments are closed.