Media Criticism, Philosophy, Political Commentary, Popular Culture, War Commentary

Why Trump Is Worse

60 Comments

…than any previous Republican nominee (discounting the fact that he’s not really a Republican):

We know, from his deeds, words, and even his pronouncements in this campaign, that Trump offers nothing to conservatives – worse than nothing, he would evict us from any position within our own party. He gets his foreign policy ideas from Michael Moore and Code Pink (or worse yet, from Vladimir Putin); his abortion views are grounded in his sympathy with Planned Parenthood; he supports socialized medicine in the form of single-payer healthcare, higher taxes, more government spending, and Herbert Hoover’s trade policy. He’s never met a bailout or a crony-capitalist deal he didn’t like, or a Democrat he wouldn’t donate to. He’s astonishingly ignorant, emotionally unstable, and wholly incapable of saying no to Democrats. Trump is a spoiled, entitled rich kid who shows not the slightest understanding of the American way of up-by-the booststraps striving to better yourself; in Trump’s world, the rich get richer by having the right friends, and everybody else is a serf who needs the government to protect them from foreign competition.

Let’s compare Trump to some of the prior Republican presidential losers, and I’ll throw in Rudy and Newt for good measure since I’ve written on this site in their defense before…

RTWT.

[Update a while later]

In short: yes, you can find an example of many of Trump’s flaws in prior Republican presidential candidates. But not one of those candidates combined the total package of Trump: the unfitness to be Commander-in-Chief; the total lack of accomplishments, sacrifices or even efforts over his lifetime for any cause we believe in, combined with repeated efforts to assist the other team; the manifest lack of political principle, personal character or demonstrated political character; the ignorance; the catnip for white supremacists; the toxic effect on the brand of both the party and its ideas.

A vote for Trump, even in the general election, is a suicide note for the Republican Party and the conservative movement. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton, but I cannot in good conscience ever give aid and comfort to Donald Trump and the poison he represents.

That’s my current attitude. I don’t know whom I’ll vote for — it will depend on what I see on the ballot.

60 thoughts on “Why Trump Is Worse”

  1. The only cost to abandoning Trump in the general election is the specter of a defeat to Hillary – but Trump’s nomination ensures that anyway.

    That’s called a self fulfilling prophesy.

    Trump will beat Hillary. He will not destroy the party (unless they destroy themselves.) He will not treat America as the bad guy.

    If you let Hillary get elected, you are a traitor to everything you believe.

    1. patriotism trumps ideology. That is, of course, a very conservative principle,

      Get it?

    2. Thanks; from your link:

      “In the body of her essay, Miss Noonan observes:

      “In my continuing quest to define aspects of Mr. Trump’s rise, to my own satisfaction, I offer what was said this week in a talk with a small group of political activists, all of whom back him. One was about to begin approaching various powerful and influential Republicans who did not support him, and make the case. I told her I’d been thinking that maybe Mr. Trump’s appeal is simple: What Trump supporters believe, what they perceive as they watch him, is that he is on America’s side.

      “And that comes as a great relief to them, because they believe that for 16 years Presidents Bush and Obama were largely about ideologies. They seemed not so much on America’s side as on the side of abstract notions about justice and the needs of the world. Mr. Obama’s ideological notions are leftist, and indeed he is a hero of the international left. He is about international climate-change agreements, and leftist views of gender, race and income equality. Mr. Bush’s White House was driven by a different ideology—neoconservatism, democratizing, nation building, defeating evil in the world, privatizing Social Security.

      “But it was all ideology.

      “Then Mr. Trump comes and in his statements radiates the idea that he’s not at all interested in ideology, only in making America great again—through border security and tough trade policy, etc. He’s saying he’s on America’s side, period.”

      And that, I think, is precisely the key to Mr. Trumps astonishing rise from a clown no one took seriously to the presumptive Republican nominee, and quite possibly the Presidency of the United States. Yes: he’s divisive. But he’s not divisive along ideological lines; he ignores ideological lines. Many of his policies are conservative, but that’s hardly surprising: many conservatives believe their policies are best for the United States. But Mr. Trump is opposed to ideological wars.”

      In other words he is a patriot more interested in what he think is in America’s best interest than an idealogue of any strip. Which is why I am very likely voting for Trump…speaking as someone who has never voted Republican for Prez in my adult life.

    3. It was a good read but I disagree that Bush thought Iraq was behind 9/11 and that we went to war in Afghanistan after Iraq or even that Iraq was predestined to collapse. Both wars were waged out of national interest.

  3. A vote for Trump, even in the general election, is a suicide note for the Republican Party and the conservative movement.

    Good grief what meaningless noise. Wouldn’t a “conservative movement” be involved in conserving something other than power? Are you really not aware that those words have formally entered parody territory?

    The only cost to abandoning Trump in the general election is the specter of a defeat to Hillary – but Trump’s nomination ensures that anyway.

    Well… OK then. Your conscience is clear and consider your virtue properly signaled. The rest of us will do what we’ve always done; get in line and vote the ticket. I know you’re probably aware but I’ll remind you anyway; disliking the current POTUS is not in and of itself particularly noteworthy. A solid majority of Americans have been in that state for going on 8 years now. If a future where you are not allowed to go through the effortless motions of bemoaning another Clinton’s corrupt, faithless, dishonest and triangulating actions safely, but instead includes the horrific possibility that you might need to type “I absolutely abhor the man, but in this case he’s doing the right thing” leaves you in need of dry pants, maybe the issues are yours.

    In short, if a pure and irrelevant Republican Party is that all-consumingly important to you, the majority of working Americans be damned, then at least I may wish you continued comfortableness. God help us all if at some point in the future you found yourself troubled at renewing your party membership.

      2. I don’t disagree, and if the GOP had any intelligence, they would be pushing, as Trump has, for Bernie to run under the Socialist Party banner. It would fragment the Democrat Party, and in an odd way. Blue Collar Dems would be split between those who truly believe in Socialism and those who believe in rugged individualism. Feminist would feel obligated to run for Hillary, or realize her overall harm to individual women. Alternative culture would probably split to Bernie. The true Socialist in the Democrat Party will have a viable candidate in Bernie.

        This would leave Trump (or in the GOPe minds, Kasich/Romney, etc) an easy path to victory in November.

          1. Reading for comprehension, bob… GOP didn’t provide the counsel. Trump made the suggestion. To expand a bit further; it really doesn’t matter if Sanders personally considers the thought. The value is convincing Sanders supporters to radicalize around the idea, such that Hillary has difficulty building party unity after the convention.

      3. To that I say, good! Look at how the TEA party was treated. The current GOP leadership was all for Jeb…do you think he would have changed anything?
        I believe Trump will handily beat H. My neighbors are all pro-Trump, friends of my wife (pro-Trump) are all pro-Trump. The link to Chaos Manor above hits the nail right on the head.
        Neither you nor I know what a Trump presidency will be like. But we can be pretty much assured what a Clinton one would be like.

        1. My neighbors are all pro-Trump, friends of my wife (pro-Trump) are all pro-Trump.

          “How could Nixon win? I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” — Pauline Kael

          1. Professor! I’m confused!

            Pauline Kael was a movie critic who arguably was in the “elite bubble.”

            The pro-Trump neighbors are those rubes on the outside-looking-in on the elite bubble. You know, like the people Ms. Kael never knew about who supported Mr. Nixon.

            Rand, to draw the connection between Pauline Kael who knew no one who liked Nixon to one of your guests on this fine Web site of yours who doesn’t have a neighbor who doesn’t like Mr. Trump, um how to I say this to you. This is a statement of equivalency that would do a Liberal proud?

          2. It’s a statement that just because everyone you know is doing something doesn’t mean that everyone is. His anecdote is defied by current polling.

          3. I asked Born why he was so sure “Trump will beat Hillary Handily”

            He replied:

            “I guess because my wife’s friends, many of whom voted for Obama twice, all can’t stand Hillary and are all pro-Trump. Don’t think that I am a Trumpster, because I am not. I am a registered Libertarian and will probably vote for Gary. I do see a lot of enthusiasm for Trump and virtually none for Hillary. As Rand notes, purely anecdotal, but it matches what I saw with BO.”

            That is absolutely no justification for believing Trump will beat Hillary handily, in my opinion.

          4. And yet, he won. Over and over again. Perhaps those words you used don’t mean what you think they mean.

        2. “I believe Trump will handily beat H. ”

          Why do you believe that?

          I see no reason to believe that.

          1. I guess because my wife’s friends, many of whom voted for Obama twice, all can’t stand Hillary and are all pro-Trump. Don’t think that I am a Trumpster, because I am not. I am a registered Libertarian and will probably vote for Gary. I do see a lot of enthusiasm for Trump and virtually none for Hillary. As Rand notes, purely anecdotal, but it matches what I saw with BO.

  4. 2 things.

    1. Anybody to the right of Hillary and Bernie and can win is better than Hillary and Bernie. Trump supporters know that and know Romney couldn’t get it done. You’ll only convince Trump supporters to budge if you can show with certainty he would lose and another GOP candidate could win. I don’t know of that other mythical candidate. Cruz could win, but it’s far from certain and probably less likely than Trump, when you factor in media.

    2. Voters who lean Republican are tired of supposed conservatives that rollover at the first sight of a reporter. Why I personally think Cruz has backbone; I do know that Trump’s willingness to take on the media is his number 1 appeal. Until the GOP can do that, they are a dog with all bark and no bite.

  6. “Cruz could win, but it’s far from certain and probably less likely than Trump, when you factor in media.”

    I don’t see any way Cruz can win. I don’t see how he can legitimately even win the nomination at this point, and, if he manages to push Trump out, the Trump supporters I know will not vote for him. Heck, many have said they’ll vote for Clinton if Trump isn’t nominated, because it will be a clear sign that the Republicans want her to win.

    Yes, Trump in the White House will be disastrous for the current Republican establishment. But Cruz stealing the nomination from Trump and then losing will be the end of the entire party.

  7. If Cruz wants to be the nominee AND not have a landslide loss in November, IMHO he has one path and one path only; a big winning streak (winning the vast majority of remaining states). Then, and only then, will be have a viable argument at the convention as to why he, and not the person with the most votes and the most pledged delegates, should be the nominee.

    Right now, Cruz’s efforts to disenfranchise voters are leaving too sour a taste in many voter’s mouths, so if he takes the nomination via that route after continuing to lose most actual elections, he’s toast in November – as are a lot of downticket Republicans.

    I’ve long preferred Cruz, and share the concerns about Trump, but Cruz’s blatant delegate games are souring me on him, fast. The latest is that there are reports (including from former governor Brewer) that Cruz MAY have poached almost all of Arizona’s delegates, and Arizona voted for Trump over Cruz by almost 2-1. This is IMHO not fully confirmed as of yet, nor is the very important aspect of how it was done yet public, so I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt…. for now.

    I think the Republican party needs to wake up and fix its system (for the next election, not this one ) so that disenfranchising its own voters via delegate poaching is no longer an option.

    I’ll also make a further prediction; if Cruz arrives at the convention after losing most of the remaining states and thus with about half Trump’s delegate total, Cruz may well stop Trump, but Cruz won’t be the nominee – he’ll merely be unwittingly opening the door to an establishment pick, a true theft of the nomination – and an even larger defeat in November due to alienating both the Cruz and Trump supporters.

    I very much hope I’m wrong.

    1. Cruz is not disenfranchizing Republican voters. Many of us support _any candidate but Trump_. Unfortunately, the result of that has been a fragmented vote with delegates for many different candidates; that is the way we are disenfranchized. The convention is our version of a runoff.

      1. The problem is that as the number of candidates has decreased, Cruz hasn’t been picking up more voters. Kasich has and no one even likes him. Who knows how things would have been with a less crowded stage earlier in the contest?

        Cruz fights hard but his tactics are working against him. Its too bad because he was the only other candidate who knew how to deal with the press.

      2. I do think a runoff of some sort would actually be useful. We have this candidates-other-than-the-clear-top-two-causing-lack-of-clarity all the time.

      3. As I’ve been arguing for months, Cruz already has disenfranchised conservative voters because he’s not actually eligible. He merely knocked all the US born conservative candidates out of the race.

        At present few Republicans are willing to hear that and fewer still are willing to say it. But if Cruz becomes the nominee the entire Democrat media establishment will suddenly discover the issue, on queue, and talk about it 24/7. Hillary will come out and say “I’m just hearing about all this from my lawyers, and if there’s so much upset over it maybe it does need to be looked into.” The whole plan is probably laid out in a binder, down to which challenges to file with which Democrat appointed judges, and in which circuit.

        They cannot lose in court unless they’re doing so intentionally to create contradictory ruling to expedite the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can’t possibly rule that Ted Cruz is the only person who is a natural born citizen by descent, because there are probably a million such people who aren’t even citizens.

        Princess Alexandra of Hanover, for example, would become a natural born US citizen via her mother, Princess Caroline of Hanover, via her mother, Princess Grace of Monaco, who was a US citizen. That would also apply to probably a quarter million Germans whose ancestry includes American occupation forces. You see, US citizenship laws governing people born abroad are all written under Congress’s powers to naturalize aliens. If they’re natural born citizens then they’re not aliens, and US laws about residency and whatnot don’t apply.

        Any one of those people could file suit citing Cruz’s status as the basis for their own citizenship claim, and like all prior claims like that, the Supreme Court would reject them, and in so doing have to establish that Cruz isn’t a natural born citizen.

        At present the cases have been given to judges who struck down Obama birther claims, and the Cruz challengers are given the same consideration. “Birthers” “Nutters” “Wackos”.

        But when David Kendal, Eric Holder, and Lawrence Tribe are representing Hillary Clinton’s challenge, the case becomes entirely different. Then it’s a very serious matter that will go to the Supreme Court, and that court can’t make a crazy exception that says Cruz is a natural born citizen but the millions of other people sharing his exact situation aren’t.

        So yes, the anti-Trump conservatives have been disenfranchised, over a month ago. They just don’t realize it yet. Their only options are probably Kasich, Jeb, and Romney, but they won’t even be given the choice because that would cause too much chaos. Better for the GOP to wait until after the convention and have a challenge filed ahead of the Democrats timetable, so the establishment can just pick a replacement candidate while they still can.

        And that’s why law professor Victor Williams became a candidate in several states, to get standing to file challenges while there’s still time to head off the Democrats. He may or may not succeed.

        I know it may be deeply upsetting, and the truth often is, but as Scalia said, you have to approach the text of the Constitution and realize it may not tell you what you want to hear.

        It’s going to get far more upsetting when lots of conservatives realize they were shafted, and who in the establishment and in media stood by and let it happen. Cruz supporters were too busy citing the complicated rule book on delegate selection in several states, while completely ignoring the three simple rules signed off on by John Adams, James Madison, and John Hancock.

          2. I could, but I don’t want you all to be completely blindsided when the Democrats pull out the big lawyers and a media blitz. They are extremely good a coordinating. Do you remember how fast everyone on TV was saying “gravitas“?

            You’re going to have the same thing with “natural born citizen”, with interviews with historians and Harvard law professors, Georgetown law professors, and Stanford law professors.

            Having looked deeply into the subject, the Republicans would lose because they won’t be able to offer a legal argument that could stand up as a high school term paper.

            There are areas where you could argue an interesting case, but Cruz is not one of those cases. He’s a natural born Canadian citizen and a naturalized American citizen, assuming his mother filed the appropriate paperwork for him. It doesn’t even touch on some ambiguous gray areas where a court could at least make the decision interesting.

          3. Don’t you see it?

            Mr. Trump will come up just short of the magic delegate number, and in the time between California and Cleveland, it will be the Republicans who put forward the eligibility challenge: either directly or through a false-flag operation.

            Then, the party bosses will pick an alternative candidate.

            I predict they will go with a substitute hair-enhanced Northeastern recent-Democrat with a proclivity to depart from the prepared script . . . Joe Biden . . .

          4. “I could, but I don’t want you all to be completely blindsided when the Democrats pull out the big lawyers and a media blitz.”

            GT PLEASE believe me when I tell you that we are all very clear on your opinion on this. No one here will be blindsided. You saw to that about a month ago.

            Your position hasn’t held up in court. Repeating it ad nauseum here won’t change that in the next courtroom.

          5. “Repeating it ad nauseum here won’t change that in the next courtroom.”

            The “next courtroom” is the courtroom of public opinion. Most voters still are not paying any attention to the election. The first time they will hear about Cruz being born in Canada will be the last week of October.

  8. Which is worse Obama or Clinton?

    If one were to return to 2008, and one knows what you know now, and had to pick between Obama or Clinton, which one is worse?

    So with Obama we have the advantage of knowing what happened.
    We know Obama was given a second term. And we know Republicans hold majorities in both houses. We know Republicans hold more governor positions.
    We know governmental transparency has reduced dramatically, and the press is is no longer the 4th estate- but press is aware of their diminished status and are not really happy about it.
    Other things could added to the list- lack of economic growth, wars, etc.
    With Clinton she might have had only one term, and we might still have 4th estate and have more governmental transparency. Also we could possibility of Obama being elected at later date, and probably would not have Bernie Sanders being a serious candidate. In generally Clinton would have been more checked by the legislative branch and unlikely to have something like Obamacare, though we could had some governmental health care bill passed and it might not appear as bad as Obamacare. And etc. But it seems that Clinton would not have been so stupid with the situation in Iraq- we probably would have US military force agreement with Iraq and kept about 50,000 troops in Iraq, and probably not have the current mess in Middle east- but of course middle east would still have lots of problems.
    Probably it would not be clear that Clinton was the worst president, but rather merely one of the worst.

    So now it seems to me, the worst thing about Clinton being elected in 2016, is she would continuation of Obama, but it seems press might be critical Clinton presidency- or they would be unlike the way they were with Obama. She does not have high likability, to put it mildly and has huge baggage of corruption. Plus hard to imagine ex-president Obama,
    keeping his mouth shut- he being delusional, probably would worry about Clinton damaging his legacy. Also I think the Dems would worry about Clinton lessening their power in upcoming House races. They should have been worried Obama would do this [and probably were worried, but they didn’t want to oppose Obama].

    The presidential office anyone will inherit from Obama, is going to difficult no matter who wins in 2016. This is simply part of why Obama has been worst president- if he was a good President, it would be less difficult. It’s going be like having office filled with unfinished business and personnel who are clueless, incompetent and corrupt.
    And other management infrastructure in ruin, one situation of foreign policy out of control and US economy still in the Great Recession.

    So I would say the President who wins the 2016 election has very high chance of being a one term President- even if they were a competent President, because of what they would have inherited.

    So, one would say that if Clinton is elected president it will not be the end of the world, but rather be a continuation of the end of the world.
    Now to keep things in prospective, America is still a great nation, and main part of end of world, is the world rather than America, but end of the world might include things like a nuclear war or two, and this could take a while to get to this point.
    The end of the world, could be like running from the bear, and one only needs to run faster than the others. Europe could be slower.
    One could also look at it, as if America simply did not have a president- so America has not have a President for less than 8 years and with Clinton maybe it wouldn’t be for 12 year. Or 8 years of no president and 4 years of an incompetent or absent President.
    Or we are sort of how Japan has been before Obama showed up and ongoing.. Difference being Japan is not the world’s Superpower.
    Also America has had worst times- if want to pick and choose various aspects- the Cold War was not pretty, though we might be closer to Hot War- there is more uncertainly, though far less widespread public fear of it.
    We are almost living in a world in which America lost the Cold War, but still retain some of our nukes- and have a redistribution of nukes globally, which may accelerate at some uncertain rate.

    So I think the upside in terms of Clinton/Bernie and Trump/Whoever is that the next President probably will get 1 term or less. Which generally has been the normal. And:) we will soon repeat this election season again, shortly.

  9. “Newt’s tenure as Speaker featured its share of missed opportunities and misjudgments, but name me a more consequential and effective Republican House or Senate leader in the last half century; in 1995-96, he got more done for conservative policy priorities in two years with a Democratic President than Denny Hastert did in six with a Republican. And for all their policy deviations, Rudy and Newt are both guys who are well-versed in conservative ideas and expert at defending them in the public square. None of these things – not the accomplishments, not the fights for policy and the political team, not the ability to sell our ideas and solutions – is true of Trump”

    I think Newt is good republican. He is wonk and he liberal in classic sense [not liberal = Lefty or they like to be called progressive, because the lefties have dirty the label of liberal].
    But an actual liberal republican was someone like Nixon- with his fascist imposed national price controls being the extreme example of his liberalism.
    And it’s my guess that Newt is one of main reasons Trump got into the republican race. Newt gave Trump advice regarding running a campaign.
    Metaphorically, Trump presidential run is like idea of 20 billion dollar prize for someone going to Mars. And it could criticize it.as wild and goofy.
    Or 20 billion prize is a way to get Mars settlements. Trump for President is way to get presidental leadership- from the private sector.
    Newt likes outsiders, because he is an insider- and sees the mess.
    So 20 billion prize is a solution. But it is a risk. But idea whole of 20 billion prize is to manage risk. Though I believe it’s currently a 10 billion dollar prize.
    So Newt is all about finding new way of a government to do something- and the 10 or 20 billion prize is how government could go to Mars [get the private sector focused on the task with a prize]. So this is the classic liberal- all about finding new solutions.
    But I would not call Trump a classical liberal- he is a business man, listening to a proposal, and acting on it.

  10. The Left or what came a little later, Marxism, is fundamentally, inhuman.
    It’s system of dehumanization.
    This is a good thing for some people, as they don’t like the animal called human.
    Or one will find lefties where ever there are plans involves eliminating humans. They have the reasons for doing this, but the goal is to get rid of as many humans as possible. Ie: the humans are a plague upon Planet Earth.

    A shadow of this is idea that human can changed into better humans.
    This could sound like a nice idea.
    But it’s not the American idea.
    The American idea is governments can be changed into better governments. Trying to get governments to be better governments is long and ancient tradition with ups and downs- but mostly downs..
    Religion has been messy with idea of making better humans.

    Of course religion and governments can get intertwined- and hence
    why America law separated religion from government.
    But they were protestants of various stripes- or this idea of separation predates the US Constitution.
    Or England was struggling with this problem with bad solution which better than the worst one they had, of making a state christian religion which had main selling point of separating it from Rome.

    Anyways the Left is tied to cult like religion, but kind of similar to CatholicChurch- has figurehead of God on Earth and it’s the government being the incarnate God rather mess with some mythical and fuzzy God [elsewhere or everywhere].
    But Left doctrine is not using my way of expressing it, rather it’s pseudo science type expression which is closer to God does not exist, but instead the practical value related to God is the government.
    And also having it controlled by a grand committee is idea which favored by committees fashioning such plans.
    So, indications of Marxism are the large posters and statues of the Dear Leader.
    And entombing Stalin in glass box, makes all kinds of sense to these
    psychopaths or I suppose one generously call them primitive people.
    Certainly it is not anything vaguely new.
    It’s the technology which enables this tyranny which is only thing new.
    Though combined with technology a newness related to it, was that made in the US- it was a US export, though of course bootlegged export.
    And US remains vast fever swamp of ideas.
    So one can blame America for Germany education system and then ultimately for Nazism. Though more clearly, one can blame French revolution on America but also the feckless and decadent French King.
    Anyways, one can easily find many things wrong about the human creature, and if nothing else, the Old Testament indicates that this is the
    case. But point is, it doesn’t require much effort to find things bad about
    humans.
    A conservative is someone who accepts that human are not perfect, AND more importantly, in terms definition of conservative, accepts that there is not much one can do about this, other than perhaps try to endure it.
    But one can help manage the human condition. One aspect of this is related governance. But also there are other ways: religions, dedication to family and work, charity, sports, hobbies, or whatever. {If you don’t think baseball has much to America, look again.]
    But America conservative, believes the worth of nation of America and believes America is beacon of the world. And this largely related to it’s kind of government which constrained by the Constitution. And the system of government which is accordance to the Constitution.

    And Lefties sees that America is bad- to be changed or destroyed.

    But they can’t point to better place in the world- if they can, could they, please, go there.

  11. OT: leftists continue to prefer American Indians to science. “Kennewick Man is genetically related to Native Americans in the Pacific Northwest. And, on Wednesday, the Army Corps of Engineers — which is in possession of the remains — declared that it’s working with the Native American tribes to coordinate a burial…. ‘From our oral histories, we know that our people have been part of this land since the beginning of time.'”

    https://www.google.com/#q=washington+post+kennewick+man

    1. Yeah, and instead of taking the DNA sample straight to the lab, the Corps of Engineers technician drove with it in the trunk of the car to the excavation site and later parked at a donut shop and let the car sit in the hot sun. It was hours before the sample made it to the lab and anything could have happened to it . . .

  12. Trump is actually the most conservative candidate running. Without your borders, there is nothing else left to conserve. Just ask the Carthaginians.

      1. Trump seems to like building things- and has been successful.
        Trump probably like idea of doing easy stuff, and building it would be easy to do. Though not easy in terms of being qualified as something politically correct.
        But also reasonable to expect Cruz to build the wall, though I think Trump would more interested in building the best wall.
        I think Trump would like to be known throughout history for finally getting the wall built. And I think Cruz has greater aspirations he wants to focus on..

        1. If Trump became president he’d be so overwhelmed the first day that he’d never think about the wall again. He wouldn’t have time.

          The mess that Obama is leaving would tax any new administration (except Hillary’s as she is as feckless as Obama).

      3. I assume this on the basis that Trump is the only candidate even talking about securing the border. He made it his issue.

        And make no mistake, it is the primary issue in this election. Everyone can see what is happening in Europe. Everyone can see what happened in the US last year.

        Or you could just have your vote canceled out by an illegal immigrant voting illegally. But of course that could never happen in California.

    1. Those of us who actually value liberty are considered cranks and weirdoes.

      Every time somebody talks about how we may lose our liberty I think, “Have you looked in the rear view mirror lately?”

  14. For all you Trumpsters who maintain the fiction, in your heads, that Cruz is just part of the Establishment, I refer you to:

    “”Republican regulars, you see, actually hate Ted,” as Carl Cannon informs us. “They have much more antipathy for him than for Hillary. They don’t want to hear Cruz’s voice again when this campaign is over,” much less to see him as president. Or as John Boehner put it, “I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cause-and-effect/article/2590155

    In fact, every vote for Trump is a vote for continued crony capitalism, crony shady deals, continued failures of un-thought-out boondoggles and massive disappointment if you think Trump has the faintest clue or even the desire to “Make America Great Again”.

    You’ve been warned. And you will get NOT ONE scintilla of sympathy from me if:

    1) Trump loses to Hillary (which I think is the most likely outcome) or

    2) Trump wins and things crumble further.

    1. 2) Trump wins and things crumble further.

      It’s crumbled further in all cases (even during the Reagan years) so why should Trump be any different? A president is just one person. The forces causing the crumbling have been increasing every year.

      The ONLY possibility of reversing the crumbling trend is a bastard that can take on the media and put American interests first. I doubt Trump can do it, but I know nobody else will even try.

      1. “I doubt Trump can do it, but I know nobody else will even try.”

        Reminds me of Rick to Lazlo in Casablanca:

        “We all try. You suceed.”

        They’d all try. But, except for Trump, they’d just be doing the same things that have hitherto failed.

    2. –You’ve been warned. And you will get NOT ONE scintilla of sympathy from me if:

      1) Trump loses to Hillary (which I think is the most likely outcome) or

      2) Trump wins and things crumble further.–

      Well, you will have my sympathy when Cruz loses today.
      Does anyone think a Beck fast would be helpful defeat Clinton?
      But if miracle happens and Cruz wins today, I will need no sympathy.

      I don’t think Hillary winning the primary is very likely, but I will give her a 50% chance. Or it will not require a miracle like a Cruz win today, will require.
      I don’t underestimate Berie’s chances of winning the general, were the Dems to come to the decision to support him rather than crooked Hillary.

      As far as the general election with Trump winning it and becoming the President.
      A lot can happen before then. As said, we not sure whether Sanders or Clinton will be the Dem candidate. And of late Sanders is talking about possibility of having contested Dem convention. Politically that is a good thing for Bernie to bring up. The media has going on and on about Republican contested convention, and today’s result might create vacuum for such foaming at the mouth, which could be replaced with talking about Bernie’s contested convention.
      Today, it’s likely the only contest which will be close will be Bernie and Clinton. So you going to have all these media types with nothing to do, when the polls close other than quickly declaring Trump is the winner.
      And the Clinton and Bernie contest “might be” too close to call, the second after the polls end.
      So what are they going to talk about?

  15. court can’t make a crazy exception that says Cruz is a natural born citizen but the millions of other people sharing his exact situation aren’t.

    The goal may just be to discover all these new Americans?!

  17. There should be Green Party and Libertarian Party candidates this year as well no? Plus I would not be surprised if someone else comes out of the woodwork.

Comments are closed.