Further post-Super Tuesday thoughts
My first thought is that this primary season has been a nightmare—but an interesting nightmare.
My second is that if one more person writes that I don’t understand the anger driving Trump voters, I will scream (virtually, of course). Because I’ve observed and dealt with, argued with and to a certain extent shared, that anger for many years. Any blogger unaware of that anger by the time these primaries began should really give up blogging; it was that obvious. In fact, in 2012 I predicted a party rift if Romney were to lose the presidency, and even before that my stomach predicted a Romney loss, which meant a rift was nearly inevitable.
I wouldn’t say my stomach never lies, but let’s just say it’s not feeling so well right now, either.
My third observation is that there’s a lot of angst on the liberal side of the fence, too. Having attended a series of family functions lately that involved being in the bosom of groups of liberals, I detect a fair amount of unhappiness with the choices they are being presented with, and of course with the possibility of a Trump presidency. One of the relatives who is quite politically aware and involved summed it up this way: “I feel as though for the first time in my life I have no candidate.” She has long detested Hillary Clinton, and is no socialist and therefore Sanders does not present an alternative for her.
I know you’re not going to weep bitter tears at her plight, but I get the impression she’s hardly alone. And she sounded quite bewildered.
My fourth observation is that Trump did worse than I expected last night (although still very very well), Cruz better, and Rubio worse. Unfortunately, that doesn’t translate to the clarity I’ve been seeking. If Cruz were to emerge unequivocally as the leading non-Trump candidate and Rubio to fade, I would be quite happy, and I happen to think that Cruz could win against Hillary. But the results were just even enough between them that neither is a clear enough second-placer to knock out the other.
At present, though, there are hints that the so-called “establishment” is starting to think that Cruz is a more acceptable face for the party than Trump. Witness one Lindsay Graham, RINO extraordinaire, who had recently joked about murdering Cruz on the Senate floor and no one being willing to convict, and who is now saying this:
“…[The GOP] may be in a position where we have to rally around Ted Cruz as the only way to stop Donald Trump. And I’m not so sure that would work.”
When interviewer Charlie Rose asked Graham to confirm that he thinks Cruz is the only candidate who could stop Trump’s march to the GOP nomination, Graham agreed. “I can’t believe I would say yes, but yes,” he said.
Graham said Hillary Clinton would beat Trump “like a drum” in November.
“I think we’re about ready to lose to the most dishonest politician in America, Hillary Clinton,” Graham said. “And how could you do that — nominate someone who’s crazy. I think dishonest beats crazy. That’s our problem.”
I think that the GOP must indeed unite around Cruz now. But if so, someone needs to get the message to Rubio and his backers, and good luck with that. There is, however, a scenario (not a likely one, but a possible one) in which both Rubio and Cruz stay in and it leads to a brokered convention. A brokered convention that shuns front runner Trump would be another sort of nightmare that would rend the party still further, but it might be worth it because there may not be that much rending left to be done.
If the GOP nominates Trump, the party will be utterly changed into something a lot of former Republicans will not be able to support. If a brokered convention denies Trump the nomination despite his lead, Trump and his supporters are likely to declare war and go third party in revenge. But even if Trump becomes the official GOP nominee, if he loses to Clinton I predict that a great many of the Trump supporters will blame the GOP establishment for it with a “stab in the back” narrative that will go on and on.
[ADDENDUM: Some interesting observations by Jonathan V. Last:
Why did [Trump] lose Oklahoma? Because it’s the only state where the vote was restricted to actual Republicans. Which further bolsters the case that Trump is not leading a revolt from within the party, but staging a hostile takeover of it.
What happened in Virginia? Trump looked to be 14 points up just a few days ago. Rubio closed very strongly.
And remember back when everyone said Trump had a ceiling of support around 35 percent? That was before he won three contests and got his first mainstream endorsements, from Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Jeff Sessions. There was that garbage poll from CNN on Monday claiming Trump was at 49 percent nationally. His total take of the popular vote on Super Tuesday was about . . . 36 percent. Which is enough to win, but shows that he hasn’t grown his coalition, even with his frontrunner status having been “normalized.”
It may be a myth that Trump has some sort of 1/3-or-slightly-above ceiling. But so far that figure is pretty much what has panned out.]
Neo, I remember your prediction about Romney and the future of the Republican party. Prescient indeed. And any conservative paying attention knew that 2012 was unequivocally a harbinger regarding our nation’s future. And here we are. Where I disagree with Graham (surprise, surprise) is his description of Hillary. Dishonest? How about criminal? This entire administration has been in criminal violation of our nation’s laws and in so many arenas, it overwhelms. I also disagree with the description of Trump. Crazy? No. He is a lot of things that are negative, but I would not describe him as crazy. The Republican leaders that thought they could sell the electorate Jeb (sorry, Jeb, your last name disqualified you) are the crazy ones. We are still holding out for Cruz, but either way, our family will vote the Republican ticket over that criminal Hillary when the time comes.
Sharon W:
I think Graham was trying to be way too cute by calling Trump “crazy.”
I have never thought Trump to be the least bit crazy. Crazy like a fox.
Does anyone have at hand a complete list of states in which voting in the primary is limited to registered members of the party in question? It would be interesting to see where Trump falls in open vs closed primary states.
I don’t think I could name two registered Republicans that are currently planning to vote for Trump. With all due respect to the long-time members here on Neo’s site who are Trump-backers, I know no one in real life who is actually a Republican/conservative who doesn’t loathe the guy more every day.
Last night’s Trump victory speech likely begins the transition from “crazy man” to a more gracious, polished Presidential aspirant. Look for him to build an impressive coalition of “traditional” Repubs to go along with the crossover Dems and independants. The “reality star” shtick will soon end…
neo,
What’s with Massachusetts? I can’t believe what Trump got there. Was it an open primary?
URL for a comprehensive listing of the primaries and more details then you may want about them. It’s a wikipedia page.
http://tinyurl.com/ps5w7am
Addendum:
scroll down to “Primary Schedule” for the detailed listing.
http://tinyurl.com/ps5w7am
Sooners are smart. They know Trump is no conservative.
Your sad family members had a good candidate, Jim Webb and their whole party blew him off.
I just hope that every pol who has endorsed Trump while Cruz is still a viable contender pays the big price when next up for election.
expat:
Yes, an open primary in Massachusetts, with lots of Independents.
Kyndyll G–My husband and I were discussing this last night. We have a lot of conservatives in our circle (many, many liberals too!) but among them we can only name one planning to vote for Trump. He is one of our subcontractors and a dear man, but way out there. Not at all in the mainstream, personal or civic. I suspect that a lot of Trump support is from cross-over votes (Dem to Rep) because the Democrats want Hillary to run against him.
If Trump shows up on Thursday for the debate it will be a war.
Cruz and Rubio will be relentless on Trump; each in his own way.
Expect Trump’s Vietnam metaphor with Howard Stern to be brought up. Repeatedly.
I am very happy that Cruz won several states last night. Sadly, Kasich and Rubio will stay in until they lose their home states. What a waste. I want the race to get down to two, so we can really see where the majority support lies. Half of Bush’s voters, it was said, went to Trump. Want to see what happens with a Rubio voter or Kasich voter.
“Why did [Trump] lose Oklahoma? Because it’s the only state where the vote was restricted to actual Republicans.”
I disagree with this analysis. Oklahoma is a very conservative state, one of the most conservative in the nation. They are perfect Cruz types. As for that being a ‘good’ thing to indicate who should be our candidate, I think it says the exact opposite. The general election will not just be about turn-out for conservative Republicans, but how many crossover votes or independent votes you can garner. And which candidate (Cruz or Trump) can get more of those voters?
Neo:
“My second is that if one more person writes that I don’t understand the anger driving Trump voters, I will scream (virtually, of course).”
On diagnosis, you check out. On prescription, you sometimes check out but more often you don’t.
The prescription must be activism-based, not limited to traditional electoral politics. You may not prefer activism – I don’t prefer it by nature – but it’s necessary to compete for real in the only social cultural/political game there is.
Sharon W:
“The Republican leaders that thought they could sell the electorate Jeb (sorry, Jeb, your last name disqualified you) are the crazy ones.”
Your view that the Bush name disqualified Jeb Bush goes to the heart of the problem because implicit in your view is the concession of the critical Narrative contest for the zeitgeist of the activist game.
Why doesn’t her name disqualify Hillary Clinton by the same reasoning? Is there a double standard for Democrats? If that’s the case, is the problem actually the Bush name or is it the double standard?
Excerpt from my 2016-oriented advice from a March 2013 comment at Neo’s:
For competitive purposes, the Republicans have needed to rehabilitate the Bush legacy – most of all with the Iraq intervention where his decision was correct on the law and the facts – for the same reasons the Democrats assiduously refurbish the narrative of the Clinton legacy.
The strategic failure by the Republicans to raise the Bush legacy – not the Bush name – has hurt the Republicans. Your view on the matter serves as a case in point of the GOP’s general vulnerability in the critical Narrative contest for the zeitgeist.
If Republicans rehabilitate the Bush legacy, for the same competitive reasons the Democrats guard the Clinton legacy, that will demonstrate Republicans are ready to compete in the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist.
But if Republicans continue to fail to rehabilitate the Bush legacy and, worse, cower from it, that shows their general weakness in the critical Narrative contest for the zeitgeist remains exploitable for their competition.
Another after-effect from yesterday:
I’ve just had two moderately conservative colleagues — one of whom is evangelical – tell me today that they’ll vote for Hillary if Trump gets the nomination. Big argument ensued. I’m back in my office now feeling hopeless about this mess.
I wonder how many here would actually vote for Clinton over Trump?
I will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances and at this point am still willing to vote for Trump if he’s the nominee. In my case this is a clear exception to the “devil you know” rule. And I say that will full knowledge that Trump indeed appears to be something of a devil.
Eric-I understand your point regarding the “Bush legacy”, but we disagree as to how it affects the present and future. Both my sons (ages 31 & 26) have read George Bush’s biography and feel immense respect for him. Both from the beginning felt “NO!!!” with regard to Jeb Bush. What you are proposing will have NO EFFECT upon the populace that will vote for Hillary. The left is made up of ideologues, those wanting to fit in with the cool crowd and LIV. That is the reason they will vote for Hillary, not what you suggest. The same thing has never been seen among the right, because we do call-out people that have “blown it”. That is NOT DONE in the Democrat realm. I would be better off talking to a wall than trying to convince some Democrat (in any of the 3 groups I proposed) to re-think Iraq. I know you mean well, but the way I understand it differs from your approach.
Richard:
“Last night’s Trump victory speech likely begins the transition from “crazy man” to a more gracious, polished Presidential aspirant.”
That makes sense.
The Narrative contest for the zeitgeist is always malleable. As I said:
Whatever Trump may be as potential President, as a presidential candidate, he’s an avid showman – supported by the necessary activist production that his GOP competition lacks – manipulating his audience.
When the game changes and his competition is caught leaning off-balance, it makes sense that Trump would perform a costume change and push them over.
Eric-I am in complete agreement with your assessment of Trump’s strategy at 12:45.
Sharon W,
I didn’t support Jeb Bush, either. Especially not after his debacle with the Kelly hypothetical. Rather, rehabilitating the Bush legacy is about the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist. All Republicans have needed the Bush legacy rehabilitated, not just Jeb Bush.
The social culture and politics of the general will of We The People is not the same thing as an aggregate of isolated individual views.
The way I understand it that differs from your approach is from my experience as an activist who thus recognizes the activist game that’s being played. I imagine better-experienced activists than I like a Beren or Horowitz would offer a similar assessment.
The Republican party may need the Bush legacy to be rehabilitated; conservatives, however, need a party in which the Bush legacy holds no sway.
I think in the long run the GOP is useless for conservatives.
Sharon W, don’t despair. Read this article about how Trump saved Mar-a-Lago and how he runs his business. If Trump is the nominee, he will move into the CEO/presidential role. Don’t worry. He has understood from the beginning that he needed to be different during the primary to be heard…and it worked.
I think many who believe today that can’t/won’t vote for Trump, will change their minds, if he’s the nominee:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3464605/If-want-know-Donald-Trump-run-White-House-look-operates-Mar-Lago.html
K-E, I’m not despairing. My youngest son has an entire scenario that he’s thought through as to Trump’s strategy. Listening to his analysis has been very interesting. I’ll let you know if he is right. I’m waiting to see how things play out. Mind you, we are all Cruz supporters but none of us have embraced the anxiety that is rocking the Republican sphere. If we were to fall into fear and worry, it would be due to another Democrat president. But we are believers in God. We know that as a nation we deserve this despicable leadership. We actually live in amazement at the continued grace and mercy of God despite all the nonsense in the political realm. There truly is nothing new under the sun.
“The general election will not just be about turn-out for conservative Republicans, but how many crossover votes or independent votes you can garner.”
The problem is, some of us don’t necessarily see outside support at primaries of Trump at levels completely unreasonable given his reprehensible character and lack of credentials as signs of people desperately itching to vote for him for president. We see it as attempts to sink better candidates to get a candidate so nonviable that even Hillary can win. (This on top of internal sabotage by angry conservatives who would vote for a pile of dog poop over Reagan, if the GOPe seemed to like Reagan, but that’s a whole separate topic.)
I know that there is some consternation on the left because there are people who cannot bring themselves to vote for either Bernie or Hillary, but generally, the committed left will never, not a gunpoint, not even if he were running against Stalin, vote for Trump. The hate and disdain for Trump – who is like a combination of the worst traits of new money, trailer park trash and everything lefties imagine that conservatives are, such as racist, sexist, ignoramuses – is so extreme that I have quit trying to point out to the lefties in my life that we hate him even worse. Trump has become an icon to the average lefty of how stupid, nasty, ugly and evil Republicans are.
The only people who will vote for him willingly are LIVs and some burn-it-down types. Otherwise, his votes will come from the anybody-but-Hillary set from both the right and left.
I am a long term Cruz supporter who has no use for Rubio.
For a while I thought that Trump was off his rocker,
no longer. he is playing a very deep game.
I think we will see a trump/Cruz ticket if Trump can convince Ted of his serious intentions nd making sure that ted will have a large influence on policy.
That’s a big IF.
please pardon my poor typing skills, poor vision/disability.
In the thread discussing Megan McArdle’s article about the responses she received re #NeverTrump, commenter Chris put his finger on why a Republican should not vote for Trump — it’s mostly a question of character, which is really everything, no? Here’s his comment in full:
‘One of McArdles’ email responses struck home to me, in light of a recent conversation I had with my son. My son is a conservative like me. In a discussion regarding whether to vote for Trump if Trump becomes the Republican nominee (we are both Cruz supporters), I expressed the opinion that I would probably have to vote for Trump as the lesser of two evils if it came to that. My son laughed as thought he thought I was joking. He said, “oh, I could never vote for Trump, I’d vote third party or not at all.”
The email response regarding why the commenter could never vote for Trump is in part as follows:
“It is that [Trump] embodies virtually everything I strive to teach my young sons not to be and not to emulate.
– That being wealthy makes one morally superior.
– That material wealth is a measure of a man’s true worth.
– That boasting about sexual conquests is something to be admired or cheered.
– That every challenge to your ideas should be met not with a sound argument about the idea, but with smears, insults and put downs about the person uttering the disagreement.
– That legitimate challenges to your ideas should be met with threats of financial ruin or lawsuits.
– That the force of government should be wielded by the wealthy against the weak.
– That your failures or lack of success must always be attributed not to your lack of intelligence or initiative, but to someone else getting something that’s rightfully yours.”
My son is a better man than me. When he graduated from law school with significant student debt, he joined the Army as an enlisted soldier to pay off his student loans, served a combat tour with an infantry unit in Afghanistan, and began his legal career after his discharge.
I realize now that my son was right. You can vote for Trump for any reason you want, I never will.’
And Ann this was my response to Chris’s comment:
Chris-I also have conservative sons, one of whom, also served in Afghanistan and is presently completing his military commitment. Both sons like yours are fiscally responsible and decent. But if it comes down to Hillary or Trump, each would vote for Trump because using the list you cite, they would make their choice in this case like they would choose a brain surgeon. What is the chance of surviving the surgery and even better, it being successful? The possibility exists that Trump (especially if our other 2 branches of government function as designed) might be up to the task. To date in her political career, Hillary has done the last 4 things on your list. They would want no part of being responsible for insuring the continued direction toward the cliff to which our Republic is headed.
Ann, please explain to me how, by actual or tacit behavior (a vote for Hillary or staying home), supporting a person who is a PROVEN criminal with regard to political position, as well as having actively engaged in the behaviors listed in the comment you cite lines up with the statement that CHARACTER IS EVERYTHING. Seriously. We have actual vs. suspected behavior we are judging. You may be supposing that Trump will have the same carte blanche that Hillary we know, based on history, will have. That’s a lot of speculation in the face of actual facts.
I think a Trump-Clinton race would have a lot of people not admitting who they were voting for, or even lying about it. It would be the definitive negative-voting election for America (so far), and you might not want even the other people in your household to know when the pollster calls.
As a political discipline, I leave one race blank every election, just to remind myself. But it’s never been the presidential one.
I am not sure Cruz would really be a stronger candidate than Rubio. For one thing, he wears his religion on his sleeve to a greater extent–which doesn’t bother me, I’m not really concerned about the ‘danger’ of Christian theocracy, but there are a lot of agnostics, atheists, and Jews who are very disturbed by it. For another, Cruz comes across as more intellectual and introverted, which may make it more difficult for him to come across as humanly connected.
Sharon W:
We know Trump’s character and it runs counter to a conservative’s aspirations. Supporting him means we embrace what he stands for. Well, count me out on that. I’d rather remain in opposition to Pres. Hillary.
So I’ll pose it to you. If you need brain surgery, would you choose your surgeon based on his character or his expertise? If we are talking Hillary or Trump, is there any question that her character is PROVEN as bad, if not worse? Do you think she has more expertise regarding the crux issues that face this nation, or does she in fact hold policy positions that are cancerous to our Republic? Does anyone doubt that not voting for Trump if he is the Republican nominee is beneficial to a Hillary win?
Nominating Trump is handing the election to Hillary anyway.
Roc scssrs–
Few if any here are advocating nominating Trump and likely most are hopeful for a different outcome. But you are stating as fact, something that is a possibility and in fact a greater possibility if Republicans stay home or write in a candidate. Even if likely, do you propose giving up, or still doing what you can to head that off? I know for the sake of my children and grandchildren, I’d rather take a chance with Trump (again, if that is the scenario) rather than go deeper into the abyss with the Democrats. Put me with Churchill in the camp that will never give up.
neo,
The very low democrat turnout at the primaries is an indication of just how much angst there is on the liberal side of the fence.
“I think that the GOP must indeed unite around Cruz now.”
The GOPe will vote for Hillary before it does for Cruz. The GOPe rightly views Cruz as a mortal threat to the status quo. The GOPe’s long collaboration with the democrats is proof positive that they can reach an ‘understanding’ with Hillary. Further demonstrated by how well Wall Street has done under Obama.
Trump, ‘deal maker extraordinaire’ is someone that the GOPe has to feel that, if push comes to shove, they can find a way to live with each other.
Graham is not the ‘sharpest pencil’ in the Senate. When he speaks, it’s so that people don’t forget that he’s still there. The GOPe’s chances of reaching a deal with Trump are much greater than with Cruz.
Whether the GOP nominates Trump, Rubio or Cruz, the republican party is in the process of dissolution. It is only a matter of how quickly the dissolution proceeds. The public has been politically and culturally ‘balkinized’, only a personal but widespread, existential, mortal threat will create the needed societal consensus to even attempt to turn our ship of state from its passage toward the cliff’s edge.
Sharon et al: We’re falling into the classic leftist debate dead-end: “A is bad; therefore non-A is inherently better.” I cannot tell you how many debates I’ve seen or been involved in, in which lefties think that putting up arguments about the badness of A means anything whatsoever about non-A.
It’s not as if Trump fell out of the heavens and has no known history. He has a long, well-known, easily researched history. He has supported Democrats and big-government, leftist causes. He repeatedly – even on the campaign trail – has threatened and sometimes sued people who speak or act against him (or even that he imagines speak or act against him), stand in his way, or simply don’t move when he comes along and tells them to. It’s obvious why he has no history in politics – he’s such an outrageous, belligerent, thin-skinned bully that were he not a walking, talking reality show that for the moment is entertaining the media, he would be a laughingstock. We don’t have to guess what he might try to do if he got hold of some power and followed the trail that Obama has blazed: “I got a pen, a phone and complete disregard for the fact that there are in fact two other branches of government.” Yeah, we know what we’re getting with Hillary, but the downside of Trump is unfathomable. We haven’t seen the likes of him in modern US politics – and that’s not a compliment.
Must we really run off a cliff rather than drive into a ditch?
Kyndall G–Where I disagree with you is the pen, and phone arrangement. I just don’t see the other 2 branches of government going along with Trump (should that be the outcome) as I have seen them go along (the Supreme Court?!) with this administration. I know they will with Hillary. For me, Trump is an unproven entity in that regard. Somehow you and others have a crystal ball that is giving you actual future information regarding these variables. I don’t have one of those.
roc scssrs,
Yep, that is the plan. Why else phone Slick Willy before becoming a ‘conservative’ candidate?
Eric,
You continue to insist that fact, logic and reason can rehabilitate the Bush legacy — that the law and the facts indicate that the Iraq intervention was correct.
It’s true that the law and facts support that contention, which counts for nothing at all. That is because… “Political ideas that have dominated the public mind for decades cannot be refuted through rational arguments.” Ludwig von Mises
For confirmation look to Europe’s 60% who still insist that Muslim refugees can be successfully assimilated into a European ‘multicultural’ secular ‘community’ that respects human rights. It is the mugging and enslavement that Muslim ‘migrants’ are starting to deliver that will ultimately disabuse Europeans of that delusion.
So too with American youth’s indoctrinated infatuation with Sander’s prescriptions. Whether Sander’s wins or not, his youthful support portends America’s future. Socialistic, third world immigrants both legal and illegal, ensure that future reality.
When a world view is invested within their ‘identity’, only brutal experience can crack that barrier.
I’d like to point out that most of the egregious things we have experienced under this administration are do to a Democrat Congress, Department of Justice and errant Supreme Court (Obamacare, Fast and Furious and on and on). I do not assume that these entities will be in lock step with a President Trump. I do predict that they would be with a President Hillary. This is conjecture, but only one portends to a possible (however unlikely) better scenario.
The interesting thing is the people who think you can grab an office and then order despotism without a huge cadre or others on your side… ie. Trump has no one on his side, who would follow his orderst to “take control” outside of what was legal and permitted… its the left that has the machine that can do that, not the disjointed right and their own who they dont like…
veddy interesting
but stupid
-arte johnson
That being wealthy makes one morally superior.
when has he ever said that? project much? read and assume by his not being a milquetoast and willing to fight for himself (god knows not one other person would stick up for him, so if he dont fight, who would?)
That material wealth is a measure of a man’s true worth.
you havent read one of his books have you? you only read the press and trust them when they say something you like, but hate them when they dont. but never be consistent in judging the press and their goals post Jekyl island… and the meeting they had early last century…
yes.. your quoting BLOOMBERG telling you what trump is like while he is deciding to run against him
The Die-Hard Republicans Who Say #NeverTrump
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-29/the-die-hard-republicans-who-say-nevertrump
nothing like siding with an enemy billoinaire progressive over another and believing them..
you probably think holodomar never happened either and that the times deserved their pullitzer…
Ann lets see what the man ACTUALLY SAYS…
not what the press says.. not what his enemies detractors socialists, etc say. — and then tell me if your son would not agree…
“It doesn`t hurt to get more education.”
“Everything in life is luck.”
“Watch, listen, and learn. You can’t know it all yourself. Anyone who thinks they do is destined for mediocrity.”
“One of the problems when you become successful is that jealousy and envy inevitably follow. There are people–I categorize them as life’s losers–who get their sense of accomplishment and achievement from trying to stop others. As far as I’m concerned, if they had any real ability they wouldn’t be fighting me, they’d be doing something constructive themselves.”
“I’ve always felt that a lot of modern art is a con, and that the most successful painters are often better salesmen and promoters than they are artists.”
“Partnerships must have loyalty and integrity at their core.”
“The more government takes in taxes, the less incentive people have to work. What coal miner or assembly-line worker jumps at the offer of overtime when he knows Uncle Sam is going to take sixty percent or more of his extra pay? . . . Any system that penalizes success and accomplishment is wrong. Any system that discourages work, discourages productivity, discourages economic progress, is wrong. If, on the other hand, you reduce tax rates and allow people to spend or save more of what they earn, they’ll be more industrious; they’ll have more incentive to work hard, and money they earn will add fuel to the great economic machine that energizes our national progress. The result: more prosperity for all–and more revenue for government.”
“There’s an old German proverb to the effect that “fear makes the wolf bigger than he is,” and that is true.”
“I like to think of the word FOCUS as Follow One Course Until Successful.”
“When people are in a focused state, the words “I can’t,” “I’ll try,” “I’ll do it tomorrow,” and “maybe” get forced out of their vocabularies.”
“Courage is not the absence of fear. Courage is the ability to act effectively, in spite of fear.”
“The point is that if you are a little different, or a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you.”
“Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren’t criticized are those who don’t take risks.”
“success comes from failure, not from memorizing the right answers.”
“My people keep telling me I shouldn’t write letters like this to critics. The way I see it, critics get to say what they want to about my work, so why shouldn’t I be able to say what I want to about theirs?”
“Focus is essential to success, and successful people are people who can focus.”
“President Reagan put it best: “Welfare’s purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.”
“Entrepreneurs are always taking feedback, especially from their customers, bankers, workers, and sales force. Without straightforward feedback, entrepreneurs cannot make sound decisions.”
“Strong Relationships Are the Key”
“Perhaps because my father never got a college degree himself, he continued to view people who had one with a respect that bordered on awe. In most cases they didn’t deserve it. My father could run circles around most academics and he would have done very well in college, if he’d been able to go.”
“As an entrepreneur, I choose my teachers carefully, very carefully. I am extremely cautious of the people with whom I spend my time and to whom I listen.”
“It is easier to ask for money when you don’t need the money.”
“Leaders, true leaders, take responsibility for the success of the team and understand that they must also take responsibility for the failure.”
“No one can match America. We have big hearts–and the courage to do what’s right. But we’re not the world’s policemen. And if we have to take on that role, we need to send a clear message that protection comes at a price. If other countries benefit from our armed forces protecting them, those countries should cover the costs. Period.”
there are TONS more..
arent they the picture of evil?
You think the press or bloomberg would say what he SAID and not make up OPINIONS they put up for you to agree with?
As i have said, i have met the man several times and his press is not who he is any more than you know who dustin hoffman is by his acting…
“…I will scream (virtually, of course).”
Go ahead and scream literally. Not only might you feel better, but I won’t hear it anyway. 🙂
There can’t be a brokered convention.
Not only is it a statistical unlikelihood (the primaries were designed to avoid this outcome), but Trump’s supporters would see it as illegitimate, and they might be right.
The only hope they have of supporting the cause is if Cruz beats Trump in
one on one combata fair fight.Jonah Goldberg, for one, says a third-party run by Trump is a “best-case scenario” at this point:
“Many decent and sincere Republicans, in and out of the Republican leadership, have been operating on the assumption that Trump will fade and that the gravest threat is a third-party run by the dean of Trump University. There was a time when that concern was defensible. But once it became clear that he was favored to win the nomination outright, Republicans should have realized that a third-party run was more like a best-case scenario.
Better the GOP do battle with a know-nothing bigot (and lose the presidency) than become the party of know-nothing bigots (and still lose the presidency).
That’s why I embrace the Twitter hashtag #NeverTrump, initiated by conservative talk-show host Erick Erickson. For too long, Trump has benefited from the assumption that the non-Trump faction of the party will be “reasonable” and support the nominee. Such thinking paves the road to power for demagogues.”
Couldn’t disagree with you more, Ann, for so many reasons. I’ve always liked what Rumsfeld said, “you go to war with the army you have—not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” Your crystal ball about what will happen under a Trump presidency is no more than prognostication. Neo and many of us predicted the disaster that is the Obama presidency, and in my opinion, even worse than I feared (from the “get-go”). But he was only able to accomplish this with the acquiescence of the 2 other branches of government. To think that Trump would have that, is absurd. I remember President Reagan complaining about how little can actually be accomplished by the President. The Democrat Machine (that will continue, and possibly finally wreck the Republic) would continue in full measure under Hillary. Soros was the man behind Obama…Hillary too.
Sharon W,
You seem to think that everyone Trump has to deal with will be a money-hungry New York type. His approach will be a disaster internationally. He is incapable of speaking to a foreign audience. He doesn’t understand that diplomats must make their threats behind closed doors or they risk having the people they are talking with kicked out of office. Congress will be able to do nothing to keep Trump’s mouth shut on the international stage.
One of the reasons I couldn’t stand Trump’s denunciation of Bush was because he seemed to have no idea of the work Bush had to do to keep our allies on our side and our foes at least cooperating with us to some extent. The world is a hell of a lot more complicated than remodelling a resort.
expat,
What the donald does not understand goes far beyond geopolitics; for starters it includes comprehension of 8th grade civics with at least a grade of D-, and some rudimentary knowledge of the history and values of Western Civilization. Make America great again, my posterior, I will not vote for a dangerous, crass buffoon who is on a mission to destroy classical liberalism, aka conservative principles.
This post is not to change minds, its to take a step back and see something i find very curious about this process of knowing someone through media.
Why does everyone think they know someone from the public image created by the leftist news press?
Thats what gets me and what i learned from doing the photography, who they are as you see them is often not who they are in person or in their daily life.
even neo has taken the time to show how photos and such are OFTEN manipulated in various ways overt and subtle to form your opinions of people. it doesnt take much as we are very senstive to a break in the consistent form or message.
how do you quantify what the percentages would be if the constant stream of negative without any real positive, and the extreme form it takes, was removed.
Where would Cruz be if the roles were reversed and the press was universally against him to the point they portray Trump, and didnt focus on Trump much?
What i find interesting about this whole thing is that Trump has any score at all given how we all know him (if only his public image we get fed matched his real self beyond surface appearance)
anyone remember the difference between the treatment of the oj simpson images between time and newsweek? time had completely changed the feel of the image from how newsweek showed it.
[funny thing is that time has run articles about photo manipulation by stalin and kim jong, and got snagged for oj simpson]
if anyone wants to see that comparison you can look here: http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/ojcovers.gif
“Any media that employ digitally doctored photographs will have a stronger effect than merely influencing our opinion – by tampering with our malleable memory, they may ultimately change the way we recall history,” says lead author Dario Sacchi. [Sacchi is commenting on how manipulating images in media changes how people think]
Which is more important, image or words?
Look up camera angle in wiki, and this may be interesting in terms of what we think we know.
The high angle shot can make the subject look small or weak or vulnerable while a low-angle shot (LA) is taken from below the subject and has the power to make the subject look powerful or threatening.
[dont take much to see how this applies to our attitudes toward children, women, and men]
and what about hair color? height? face expressions? youth vs age? sweating (not just in this race, but it creamed Nixon way back)? exposure?
remember the song you have to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative… what if you reverse this formula with the right camera angles?
Well we all know that height is good, short is bad and we dont really need Randy Newman to tell us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NvgLkuEtkA
what do we think of hair colors? anything? is it important? blonde vs black or dark?
You Are Judged by Your Appearance
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tykiisel/2013/03/20/you-are-judged-by-your-appearance/
i wonder how much this works and how someone gets around it, or despite it… or without it…
another perspective from australia (emphasis added by me):
A lot of Trump’s positions clash with orthodox GOP policies but most GOP politicans are overlooking that Trump is obviously offering the public what they want. It may therefore be the orthodox positions that have to change. Since most of those positions are designed to fit within the straitjacket of Leftist political correctness, that could be a really good thing.
Trump seems likely to break the grip that Leftist thinking has on American politics. The GOP establishment have certainly shown no willingness or ability to break out from the Leftist mental straitjacket — which is why Trump has appeal.
Some of Trump’s policies seem economically destructive to informed people but they are overlooking that his degree is in economics.
Whatever he does is therefore likely to be tokenism rather than anything seriously destructive economically. Those of us who have qualifications in economics understand its instructive power.
The Gipper was derided as a fool too and his degree was in economics also.
And he broke out of the straitjacket of conventional thinking in his time. Rather than appease the Soviets he said: “I’ve got another idea: We win, they lose”. And that was greeted with gasps of incredulity too. But it came about
John J. Ray M.A. Ph.D.
“You and I are increasingly told we have to choose between left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as left or right. There’s only up or down: Up old man’s dream–old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course… You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We’ll preserve for our children this, the last hope of man on Earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness… He has the faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.” R Reagan
One thing that may make people happier is that someone like Trump, for good, for ill, shows that the American public still can pick the leaders – and that has not been taken from us yet
If we had lost that, then who would be in the lead on the republican side?
in many ways the yelling we hear is the cry that the will of the people be damned, they are only supposed to choose the groomed professional candidate, not not not…
Then again, Trump can sweep the votes under the national ticket of wanting an outsider, and the electoral college can hand it to Hillary under the idea that maybe the public is damned to only pick what they are supposed to
Then what?
art,
According to Wiki, after 2 years at Fordham, Trump attended Wharton Business School(where they had a program in Real Estate Studies) for 2 years. Although his degree may be in economics, it doesn’t sound like a very high-level degree in the topic. I know someone who got a PhD in economics at U Penn. Perhaps Penn is more academic econ whereas Wharton is more into applied.
Artblahblah,
To compare RR to DT is beyond silly. Trump’s degree in economics is limited to his lawyers steering him through the ins and outs of bankruptcy laws.”break the grip that Leftist thinking has on American politics” Oh please, in some ways you are a very smart, informed fellow; but your wishful thinking about the donald is your albatross. Be careful of what you wish for, you just might have your wish come true.
The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol is apparently A-OK with throwing the election to Hillary if Trump has a plurality of delegates going into the convention:
Kristol Lays Out Strategy to Give White House to Hillary: Trump ‘Shouldn’t Win’
Somebody explain to me why he and people who think like him can be considered “conservative”. While you’re at it, also explain why they shouldn’t be considered enemies of this nation.
The bottom line is that the GOP establishment is afraid that Trump will break their rice bowls. They are willing to destroy not only the party but the country to prevent that. They are fine with being in the minority as long as they get to keep dipping their beaks in the public trough.
Some good comments in this thread, Art.
Everything is lies now, so there’s no way of telling if the establishment fears Trump or Cruz more. We’ll just have to wait and see what they *do*.
Well how about people from other countries?
Labor volunteers have been caught on hidden cameras bragging about using Australian taxpayer funds to work on a US presidential campaign and interfering with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton campaign signs.
In a video posted online by the conservative undercover campaign group Project Veritas Action, four Australians are recorded saying they received taxpayer funds for flights, accommodation and daily expenses while organising for Democratic senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, a possible breach of US election law.
Former Australian National University Labor Club president Ben Kremer is identified in the video trying to remove campaign signs for Republican candidate Donald Trump in Manchester, New Hampshire, acknowledging in the secret recording that the tactics were not legal. …
Western Australia Young Labor president Rebecca Doyle is identified in the video saying the [Australian Labor Party’s] international branch had coordinated travel, accommodation and funding to assist the Sanders campaign, including $60 daily stipends.
[and that children is why your grandparents didnt trust socialists]
rickl:
Have you ever considered that Kristol may (1) think Trump is a liberal, who (2) would lose to Hillary, and that he is trying to prevent that?
It’s not exactly a novel idea, you know.
neo:
If Trump goes into the convention with the lead and the GOPe uses shenanigans to keep the nomination from him, that WILL guarantee Hillary the victory.
You think I’m going to vote for Rubio? Think again.
I would vote for Cruz, but he doesn’t seem to figure in the GOPe’s machinations.
expat: Is Eureka college better than U penn or Warton? just wondering
President Reagan had earned a degree in Economics at Eureka college.. Birth of Reagonomics… in fact, before that no one labled things like they add Gate today after a scandal… ie. obamanomics is a hold over from reagan.
parker Says: To compare RR to DT is beyond silly.
depends on how you compare i guess, Trump never co-stared with a chimpanzee… but both of them did sweep votes with the electorate really disliking them and mostly due to the dissatisfaction. anyone remember STAGFLATION? gas rationing?
we have similar, though lower inflation:
In economics, stagflation, a portmanteau of stagnation and inflation, is a situation in which the inflation rate is high, the economic growth rate slows, and unemployment remains steadily high
Both were political outsiders to washington with reagan only serving office as california governor
“Reagan was ridiculed as ‘not serious’ and a B-movie actor, and they said over and over he could never win – until he did Jeffrey Lord Reagan aide
the son of the late president says the surging Trump speaks with the kind of “passion” his father so brilliantly conveyed. Reagan recalled a 1980 debate in which his father showed a rare flash of anger over the order of speakers, exclaiming, “I am paying for this microphone” – and helped turn the tide of his campaign in New Hampshire.
that’s Micheal Reagan, Ronald Reagan son comparing his dad to trump. but who is R Reagan son to compare his dad to anyone, we have you saying its silly…
Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986, making it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants and requiring employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status.
[so they both saw illegal immigration as a problem but reagan also said it was hard to get anything to change]
as to trump not being a pure republican
Reagan, too, was initially a liberal Democrat, but he backed Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon and went on to register as a Republican in 1964.
they were both television stars… no?
they both share the same slogan, though trump did trademark it… “Make America Great Again” Reagan prominently featured the slogan on his campaign materials. though really his was Lets make america great again.. it was used on buttons with george bush senior next to him
and reagan was the first president to be divorced, trump would be the second..
there are a lot of other things too..
but its silly… and i remember it…
And I remember people calling Reagan a fascist who was certain to start WWIII.
The GOPe didn’t like him, either.
rickl:
You don’t have to vote for Rubio to not think that Kristol would prefer Hillary to Cruz. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t. I don’t think he does. I think Cruz would be hard for him, but still preferably to Hillary.
I also think he thinks Trump would lose to her.
rickl:
The fact that the establishment didn’t like Reagan and doesn’t like Trump doesn’t mean they have much else in common. They don’t:
No rickl,
The GOPe is not afraid the donald will break their rice bowls. They are afraid the donald will poison the well and salt the earth for decades. The one who would break rice bowels is Cruz.
Reagan had a proven political track record as governor of California. He was an individual who had been speaking publicly for decades in support of conservative causes and positions.
Trump hasn’t held a political office. Admittedly, this is seen as an advantage by many of his supporters. But it puts the lie to any claims that Trump is “like” Reagan. And where’s the decades-long conservative track record that Trump supporters can point to?
I never said that Trump was like Reagan; just that the political establishment wants/wanted to have nothing to do with them.
Which makes them both attractive to the hoi polloi.
And where is the “decades-long conservative track record” that the GOPe can point to? Does that include such things as No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, Common Core, continuing resolutions, votes to increase the debt ceiling, “impeachment is off the table”, “we will not shut down the government”, and so forth?
[the article is not about trump written October 11, 2011. funny how the slurs are much the same yet we dont remember]
The liberal misappropriation of a conservative president
https://www.aei.org/publication/the-liberal-misappropriation-of-a-conservative-president/
Steven Hayward, author of “The Age of Reagan,” recalls the rhetoric:
Liberals hated Reagan in the 1980s. Pure and simple. They used language that would make the most fervid anti-Obama rhetoric of the Tea Party seem like, well, a tea party.
Democratic Rep. William Clay of Missouri charged that Reagan was “trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf.” The Los Angeles Times cartoonist Paul Conrad drew a panel depicting Reagan plotting a fascist putsch in a darkened Munich beer hall. Harry Stein (later a conservative convert) wrote in Esquire that the voters who supported Reagan were like the “good Germans” in “Hitler’s Germany.”…
There was ample academic support for this theme. John Roth, a Holocaust scholar at Claremont College, wrote:
I could not help remembering how 40 years ago economic turmoil had conspired with Nazi nationalism and militarism–all intensified by Germany’s defeat in World War I​–to send the world reeling into catastrophe. . . . It is not entirely mistaken to contemplate our postelection state with fear and trembling.
Eddie Williams, head of what the Washington Post described as “the respected black think tank, the Joint Center for Political Studies,” reacted to Reagan’s election thus: “When you consider that in the climate we’re in–rising violence, the Ku Klux Klan–it is exceedingly frightening.” (This was not far removed from Fidel Castro’s opinion about Reagan, offered right before the election: “We sometimes have the feeling that we are living in the time preceding the election of Adolf Hitler as chancellor of Germany.”) In the Nation, Alan Wolfe​ wrote that “the United States has embarked on a course so deeply reactionary, so negative and mean-spirited, so chauvinistic and self-deceptive that our times may soon rival the McCarthy era.”
rickl,
You seem, with respect, to slide around, the donald’s past. Obama zombies were/are cultists, now we have Trump zombies. Join the walking dead?
Well, parker, I would prefer to support an actual opposition party, if we had one.
But we don’t. We have a Uniparty.
And Trump seems to scare the Uniparty shitless, so that’s good enough for me at the moment.
artblahblah,
One thing you miss, amomgst many others, is the child is father to the man.
rickl,
No one scares anyone shitless except Cruz. Trump oh please. BTW, do you perfer cherry kool-aid or lemon lime?
rickl:
I don’t recall your explaining why you don’t think Cruz—an actual conservative with an actual track record, who actually can speak about issues in some coherent manner that is also consistent, and who also “scares the Uniparty shitless”—is not good enough for you and Trump is.
You may have indeed explained it somewhere along the line. But it seems inexplicable to me. At any rate, if you did explain, I missed it.
But I’ve seen other Trump supporters attempt to explain, and their explanations boil down to two things.
(1) They’re really pissed, and Trump speaks to their pissyness.
(2) They nitpick on some little tiny non-conservative thing Ted Cruz once did while maneuvering in the Senate, and they nix him for it, while ignoring the million and one non-conservative things Trump has said and done for decades and still says and does.
Calling the Dodger: I think you’re wasting your time in this forum. People have made up their minds and it’s pretty much all singing in unison from now on in – mild garnishings of Rubio or Kasich counterpoint notwithstanding.
Seems to be a bunch of folks here who are heavily invested in the notion of a constitutional republic which no longer exists. Bit hard for it to exist though without a semi-homogenous citizenry and any actual republican virtues. Long gone, and it would be good for the more intelligent fraction of us to awaken from these slumbers because various resurgent Monsters of the ID are going to need to be rounded up and domesticated by wise, historically-aware men of good will.
Even more silly is the double-down version of same who believe that electing a strict constitutionalist like Cruz will automagically begin a process of regeneration. This is about as sane as being a Rand Paul Libertarian.
But let them play dominos with their deckchairs if it helps them feel good about themselves.
For the rest of you, the deluge is coming. I wish it were otherwise, but wishing won’t make it so. Be thankful it comes sooner rather than later. There has been too much festering already.
It’s going to be Trump vs. Clinton/Sanders and if Trump wins, one hell of a ride. The man is no panacea. However, if one of the other two win, then the boil festers longer and the eventual pus explosion will resound through the ages.
Regardless, frantically telling one’s Cruz Beads isn’t going to freeze the Sphinx in its tracks.
Yo! trumpsters, you missed the boat. There was/is only one candidate who is a Constitutional scholar and die hard conservative. May your failure to support him haunt you until the end of your days and make your grandchildren never visit your grave.
Kinch,
You are such a breath of putrid air. I am now ready to give up, based upon your words of wisdom, BTW, do you have grandchildern? No? In my world your word is less than zero, around .000000000000001
Time for me to empty the last of the glass and snuggle up with my sweety of 47 years. Many good comments, and a lot of misguided, but largely sincere, comments. May all, but a few of you, live long and prosper.
Good job to the Democrats for getting all those Open Primaries setup. They couldn’t have done it without em.
rickl –
And where is the “decades-long conservative track record” that the GOPe can point to?
———————-
Who here is claiming that the GoP establishment is conservative?
“faction of the party will be “reasonable” and support the nominee. Such thinking paves the road to power for demagogues.””
Ah, Mr. Goldberg: GOPe hypocrisy in a nutshell. We were told in 2008 and 2012 that no matter what kind of sh*t sandwich the GOPe served us, “YOU MUST SUPPORT THE PARTY NOMINEE!” I don’t remember Mr Goldberg protesting then.
It is a hostile takeover. Essentially a hostile takeover by the voting base of the Truman Democratic Party. The Bill O’Reillys and Ronald Reagans of America; the people who watched their party leave them. The people who were sold out 48 years ago when the pinko leadership of the Truman Democratic Party stopped fighting in Chicago, 1968, and surrendered to the Reds. Conservative-leaning, but not at war with the basic social safety net guarantees of the New Deal.
And national healthcare can fall within such a basic social safety net. Obamacare was only recently passed in the US, but it is an old idea.
These people, the voting base of the Truman Democratic Party, the MARS (Middle American Radical) voters can end up in close alignment with… call them the Cruz voters. The Conservative Base. The people who look at Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, the unlamented John Boehner, and see sellouts to the demands of the doner class, sellouts with the word “traitor” tattooed on their foreheads.
If Trump walks into the Cleveland convention with a commanding delegate lead and the doner class sellouts engineer matters to steal the nomination from him, the result will not “rend” the Republican Party. The result will shatter the Republican Party like a glass goblin. The result will be American Whig Party 2.0. The GOP dies.
Perhaps not a bad thing. Ten years after the American Whig Party died, its voter base had achieved everything it had desired but the Whig Party leaders had maneuvered to block for decades. Of course, achieving those desires took the bodies of 600,000 dead men on the battlefields of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky…
Explaining The Trump Phenomenon To The Washington Elite http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/2016/03/03/trump-phenomenon/
Dear Representative,
From the time I was able to vote I voted Republican. I am 80 years old, and have a great deal of respect and influence with hundreds of senior ball players who also network with thousands of others around the country.
I received your questionnaire and request for money and strongly agree with every question, as I have since Obama was elected. Unfortunately the one question that was missing is “What have the Republicans done for the American people?” We gave you a majority in the House and Senate, yet you never listened to us. Now you want our money.
You should be more concerned about our votes, not our money. You are the establishment, which means all you want is to save your jobs and line your pockets… Well guess what? “It’s not going to happen” You shake in your boots when I tell you we’re giving our support to TRUMP and he hasn’t asked for a dime.
You might think we are fools because you feel Trump is on a self destruction course, but you need to look beyond Washington and listen to the masses. Nobody has achieved what he has, especially in the liberal state of New York.
You clearly don’t understand why the Trump movement is so strong, so I’d like to share with you an analogy to help explain the Trump phenomenon. By the way, it’s not just the Republicans who feel ignored and disrespected, there are plenty of Democrats and Independents who also feel let down by the Washington elite. You seem to have forgotten about “We The People” and who hired you to represent us.
So here it is, the best analogy I could come up with. Here is the reason so many Americans have boarded the Trump Train, and why you’re pleas to come back to the party who deserted us, is falling on deaf ears:
now we have Trump zombies. Join the walking dead?
who is the zombie when your asking for someone to explain something to them, and calling them names while you do it?
been with the liberals much?
But I’ve seen other Trump supporters attempt to explain, and their explanations boil down to two things.
(1) I have met the man several times…
(2) And i dont think the CFR is nitpicking nor being married to Goldman Sachs… no one would risk divorce and all that – and being THAT far apart is rarely workable.
(3) Ultimately, Cruz owes his future to whether the collusion of the Dems and Reps will let him, to think that anything he has done has been done without their “permission” means you dont know how things work in such a system, and how they are all about appearances and faking action to demonstrate a point to garner or manipulate.
i can do more.. and so can many others
but we dont get heard, as the press chooses who to put up to put that narrative in place, and the truth is, we READ Shakespear, not WRITE like him, and most people have a hard time articulating what or why they wanted X for lunch, let along politics on the spot
Kinch Says: Calling the Dodger: I think you’re wasting your time in this forum….
All good points Kinch, but at least i said my peace. after all, when your standing at the gallows pole and you get to speak your last, how many really care or listen?
“Pardon me sir, I meant not to do it.” Marie Antionette (stepped on the foot of the executioner if i remember correctly)
“Let’s do it.” Gary Gilmore
“I’ll pray that you don’t follow me too soon.” Eddie Slovik [Eddie Slovik is the only American soldier to be court-martialed and executed for treason since the Civil War]
“Shoot straight, you bast–-! Don’t make a mess of it!” Harry “Breaker” Morant
“Strike man, strike!” Sir Walter Raleigh
“There is nothing proper about what you are doing, soldier, but do try to kill me properly.” Cicero
“I am absolutely innocent of the crime with which I am burdened.” Bruno Hauptmann
“I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country.”
– Nathan Hale, 1776
i am a ghost anyway… no future, no way to achieve anyting i wanted, no friends, and such. so i dont really exist anyway… and given the current politics and academia, and so on… never will..
i wait to die, as there is nothing else to do…
🙂
parker Says: May all, but a few of you, live long and prosper.
thanks to the politics of this, i wont do either.
so i guess the Vulcan Curse: “Die young, be poor”
is more apt (And more in line with what you said to people before you blessed them)
anyone want to shoot me and get it all over with?
the benefits are numerous… the silence golden
the mercy welcome.. the favor appreciated…
See trump has already brough us together…
the people that dislike trump are now on the same page with Al Sharpton and Charlie Rangel!!! He is glad you can join him..
Rangel: ” As An American And As A Patriot” I Don’t Think We Can Afford Trump
AND
if you cant win honestly when someone is winning against you, change the rules and collude against the people!!!!!!!!!
Colorado Democrats and Republicans have tentatively agreed to push for changing the state’s system of choosing presidential candidates to a primary election, instead of a caucus
AND
“If a woman gets raped walking in public alone, then she, herself, is at fault. She is only seducing men by her presence. She should have stayed home like a Muslim woman.” – Dr. Abd Al-Aziz Fawzan Al-Fawzan, Professor of Islamic Law, Saudi Arabia
AND [a move only a insider could make]
Exclusive Audio – Rubio Campaign Manager Plots Brokered Convention In Manhattan Donor Meeting To Take Nomination From Trump Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is plotting to take the Republican nomination away from Donald Trump using surreptitious tactics at a so-called “brokered convention,” according to an audio recording of his campaign manger in a private meeting with high dollar donors in Manhattan obtained exclusively by Breitbart News
Last Wednesday evening in New York, according to CNN, Rubio campaign manager Terry Sullivan met privately with a group of supporters and top donors to chart Rubio’s path forward heading into Super Tuesday after abysmal performances from the first-term Florid Senator so far. During the meeting, Sullivan walked Rubio’s money men through the scenario he envisions he will use to stop Trump.
An audio recording of Sullivan giving the powerpoint presentation obtained exclusively by Breitbart News shows Sullivan plotting for a brokered convention.
Back then, while publicly projecting that they could potentially beat Trump in a race to 1,237 delegates to win outright, Sullivan had already signaled that the race is about trying to broker the convention. At such a brokered convention, Sullivan’s plan to help swing it for Rubio even if Rubio has fewer delegates than Trump is to convince the delegates to back Rubio on a second ballot–where they would be technically unbound–and thereby essentially take the nomination away from Trump, its rightful winner if he has the most delegates.
[You may not like trump as a person, but at least he isnt cheating like everyone else around him… his insults are in the open, and he is not doing backroom deals with the establishment or opposition to win… what would rubio have to do, to repay such behavior in their favor?]
The party will not back Cruz. The party hates him because he will upset their apple cart. It is possible that Trump’s candidacy is designed by the party to keep Cruz out and that Trump himself is backed by the party just in case Cruz gets to close. Then Trump with his “awfullness” can be shot down using any methods fair or foul just because he’s so awful. And all will applaud. The party would sooner have Hillary than Cruz.
IMO, the best that we who love our country and want to see it return to its constitutional underpinnings can do is hope that Trump can affect real change in the party. It is we the people who must take back our government. No one’s going to do it for us. Certainly not the current party. They stand to lose too much.
After Art’s quotes, Trump is looking better. Just maybe we get lucky and he’s the real thing.
We are not in Kansas anymore.
Neo, would you please put a permanent link to Cruz’s September 28th speech on the Senate floor? You know in a giant, flashing, running, header, so that those who cannot seem to grasp that Cruz has in fact thrown down the gauntlet to the “Uniparty” establishment, may find some enlightenment?
Geez, what’s it take to get them to acknowledge it: a repeating Gif showing him flay the Republican surrender-monkey leadership?
Or even this 4 minute segment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSPPKV-FZk8
Art:
I enjoyed the “raccoons” analogy you found and quoted.
Spot on in my opinion, and I’m starting to realize (and accept) that my opinion is probably not only in the minority but is actually reviled by some of the virtue-signalling “principled conservatives” I’ve been reading this week.
I continue to believe that getting rid of the bad critters in our basement “trumps” lofty declarations of principle during these trying times. And if the exterminator’s a little repulsive and a little smelly, that’s only to be expected.
No need to die.
In that long discourse about what the raccoon-infested homeowner wanted I saw no question about evidence of his competence in raccoon eradication. Or what happens if he decides that burning down your house is the most effective way to solve your problem….
This thread demonstrates why the GOP is probably doomed this year. I’m for Cruz (he was my second choice until Carly dropped out), but I’d be willing to hold my nose and vote for Trump if I thought he could win in 2016 and stop Hillary Clinton.
With so many conservatives willing to knowingly sacrifice this election (some even saying that they’ll actually vote for HRC) rather than taking that chance, it’s becoming clear that there really is no such chance.
I’d argue that the GOP made a tacit deal with Trump when they extracted that written pledge of party loyalty from him. Trump agreed that if doesn’t get the nomination he’ll support the GOP nominee regardless of who that is. Hard to accept that there was no implied reciprocal obligation on the part of the GOP to support Trump if he’s the nominee. Or is this just Lucy playing football with Charlie Brown?
Please don’t get me wrong: I hope that Trump doesn’t get the nomination but if he does I still believe I’ll vote for him, as the party’s nominee (warts and all). It’s becoming pretty clear that we’re going to lose anyway so it really doesn’t matter, does it?
Each man will have to make his own analysis and base his decision on what he sees as the probable outcomes of any given scenario.
For those who argue that Trump represents the Reign of Terror apocalypse, I would point out that we are already on the legal tumbrels, and that failing to stop Hillary or Sanders, will not result in a period of tranquil defeat and the beginning of an under the radar regrouping, but an intensified period in which the lawless social harrowing and dispossession of the productive and once propertied class will only increase.
We all know that the left knows no objective limits, recognizes no boundaries, and respects no limits to its sway. It is an antagonistic philosophical anthropology dedicated to reordering all society, and refashioning both the membership, and the predicates of association.
This is not a situation where you get beat and then get to go home to be more or less left alone.
Some will judge that it is better to chance life under a lawless socialist or welfare state regime; hoping that the squeezing will relent enough for they and like minded people to regroup.
But don’t they recognize that the very project of the left precludes that possibility? The game is not to get what they want and then stop, but to achieve compete existential domination of every avenue.
We have the 600 dollar reporting rule, the shared individual responsibility mandate, and potential criminal penalties for non-participation.
Where do potential Hillary voters think that they are going to be able to retreat to? Or are they actually resigned to joining the Borg Collective in the hope that they be the ones doing, rather than the ones done to?
That is a fair question. Assuming the invaders cannot be gotten out according to the currently twisted rules, and that you are likely to lose title and right to it either to the invaders or their twisted government enablers, you have to ask yourself: after trying to hire another competent man and being thwarted by the “established interests”, after having done all you could short of killing them yourself, and being unwilling to resort quite so soon to the ultimate right of self-help and a likely personal apocalypse; then, how much do you really care at that point that it burns down and no one, especially your existential enemies, benefits?
And at that point, after you have given up all that you have but your freedom to act, and are surrounded by still insistent predators … all bets are off and you can serve your own – and your allies – interests any way you see fit.
But maybe it will never come to that, eh?
DNW:
Many people are firmly convinced—based on Trump’s own statements over the years, and some even recently—that Trump is as much a leftist and statist as Hillary. So they see no reason to vote for him on that score.
ne1:
This is interesting, however, and goes against what you are saying.
I am quite puzzled by the willingness of so many Cruz supporters to give up on him because of the “establishment” bugaboo.
Arfldgr:
I missed where Rangel and Sharpton endorsed Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or any of Trump’s opponents.
Your point is meaningless. Of course there are many people on the left, and many others like Sharpton et al, who will denounce Trump. There are also those like Farrakhan who like him. That doesn’t mean that all Trump opponents (or all Trump supporters, for that matter) are alike in any way except for that one fact.
I don’t hold any of that against Trump or against his opponents. I make my decisions about Trump based on my evaluation only, which is based on his words and his deeds—particularly his words which have NOT been written by others, because that is far more revealing than his ghost-written books.
neo:
It’s a matter of recognizing the reality of the political landscape.
This gives an idea of where I think we are:
http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=6566
IMO, Trump’s a roll of the dice. Cruz cannot win even if he were nominated which it appears won’t happen.
Wonder if Cruz would accept a spot as VP on a Trump ticket?