We are now five weeks out from the start of actual voting in Iowa. That being the case, and given that the field has been winnowed to fairly manageable proportions, I thought I should offer a few pointers to those observers who are having trouble tearing their eyes away from this slow-motion car-crash spectacle.
“Did she really just say that?”
1. The media and political consultants all treat polls as though they were video footage of a horse race, but they are not video footage of a horse race. Polls are simply an educated guess, and sometimes they ought to be considered more of an uneducated guess. It is handy and convenient to be able to say that Candidate X is five points up, or ten points down, but keep in mind the possibility that the measuring rod stretched five points or shrank ten. Polls do tell you something, but errors outside the margin of error frequently occur. The method is inductive — you ask questions of 2,000 people in order to find out what 200 million are planning to do. So when election results come in wildly different from what the polls were saying, keep in mind that this might be the result of Candidate X “surging” at the last minute, but it might also be an indication that the polls were purblind and groping their way all along.
2. The fact that polls are not necessarily reliable does not keep them from being powerful players. They are influential players regardless of how “scientific” they are because everybody believes in them. They are a feedback loop that all the politically-interested hold in common. Candidates drop out of the race on the basis of them, and supporters who are looking for a candidate with “winnability” are attracted to campaigns on the basis of them. Polls are therefore a means of driving campaigns, either off the road or down the road. They directly affect what they purport to measure.
3. Everybody uses polls. Candidates cite them, donors give on the basis of them, the media reports them, and so on. But we need to keep in mind that the general electorate also uses them. The electorate doesn’t have nearly as many opportunities to do so, but when opportunity presents itself, as it certainly has in this cycle, a politically-active electorate is engaged enough to send a message to the elites by means of them. I believe the Trump naughtiness falls under this heading. It is an opportunity to scare the establishment without actually wrecking anything. As I have noted before, the electorate is currently on a spring-break bender, the point of which is to frost the parents. This is not the girl they are going to marry.
4. When the Iowa caucuses convene, something is actually happening. Prior to that time, nothing has happened.
5. If my surmise at the end of #3 is erroneous, a phenomenon that I understand has happened before, and we are faced with a choice between Trump and Clinton in the fall, what is a good little Christian to do? Faced with a choice between a grim and abiding disaster and a disaster with high entertainment value, what should we do? My best suggestion is that you should rummage through your old school things in the attic, find your lucky pencil, and take it to the voting booth to write in your mom.
6. Despite a few off-putting things here and there, I like how Ted Cruz has been running his campaign. He is very smart. He has money in the bank. He has built an impressive ground game in places that count. He is a conviction conservative, and not a weather-vane like Trump. He has been a consistent contrarian, and this does seem to me to be a contrarian year. Cruz stands in a good way to win Iowa, and if he does, he is in a great position to make the argument that it is time for conservatives to coalesce around him. After things start happening, we’ll see what happens.
7. Cruz is absolutely detested by the official Republican establishment. I can’t imagine a better commendation. I also can’t imagine a better indicator of what kind of things will happen if he wins Iowa.
a few off-putting things here and there
Examples? (Some of us have been sleeping)
“Cruz is absolutely detested by the official Republican establishment. I can’t imagine a better commendation.”
Shouldn’t that depend on WHY he’s detested by the establishment? From what I’ve heard/read, he’s detested because he’s an egomaniac who throws temper tantrums if he doesn’t get his way. We’ve had enough narcissists become president. I don’t think we need another.
That has nothing to do with what I said, and completely ignores my arguments. Sooo, thanks for nothing.
You’ve “heard” that from the establishment. That’s hardly doing your homework. If you’ve been paying attention at all then you know exactly why they hate him and it has nothing to do with narcissism but the brazen fact that he has revealed who they really are. Congress is filled with narcissists, since when was that a reason to hate anyone. He has exposed their duplicity as Palin did with the good old boys in Alaska.
One man’s temper tantrum is another man’s speaking truth to power. Which was it when Cruz took to the Senate floor to call his own party’s leader (Mitch McConnell) a liar, and provided verifiable evidence that his charge was valid?
As reported by GOPe acolytes desperate to make JEB!-Kasich-Rubio-Christie palatable to constitutionalists. This is the same old trick played every 4 years by the GOPe- “He’s unelectable so vote for the liberal Republican who can actually win the race.” No, thanks.
Cruz is bad newz. He will betray you.
I’m shocked at the notion that a man married to a Goldman Sachs bigwig doesn’t have our best interests at heart!
I love it when Trump fans view Cruz with a suspicious eye. Trump has flip flopped on every subject and to this day has about ZERO knowledge of free market/constitutional principles.
Cruz wanted to greatly expand H1Bs in 2012. Now he has reversed himself.
Why are Cruz’s reversals OK, but not Trump’s reversals?
Trump is the ultimate flip flopper. Every candidate has changed his mind on some issues. Trump has changed his mind of EVERY issue.
Trump was giving Hillary money a few years ago!! Trump said Romney was too hard on immigration in 2012!! You do not realize what a scam artist that guy is. He says anything to get elected.
OK, so you can’t explain why Cruz reversing his 2012 position is better than Trump reversing his 2012 position. Got it.
I’ll give it a shot.
Cruz reversed himself on a matter of policy.
Trump’s reversals have been on things that strike at the heart of whether he’s really fiscally, socially, and constitutionally conservative. And they’re also far more numerous.
I can say that normal human beings change a position or two (like Cruz). I am saying that if you change EVERY position (like Trump) you are either insane or a liar.
It’s going to be Trump/Cruz. Cruz brings the conservative pedigree while Trump will be the attack dog that eviscerates Hillary. Trump has demonstrated the ability to withstand the media’s attack without folding…
Cruz would be a fool to accept a Trump run. Trump is a fascist and he would be the downfall of the GOP and our nation. God protect us from a Trump nomination.
In order to use a word like fascist one must first know the definition. Perhaps you should try a more rational argument if your intent is to persuade rather than intimidate (irony anybody?)…
Any relation to Regnad Kcin?
I didn’t understand the reference at first, then “it all came rushing back to me like the hot kiss at the end of a wet fist”.
I spell my name: Danger
What definition of fascist are you using that Trump, supporter of the Kelo decision, does not fit?
As a businessman and developer Trump’s support for laws or legal decisions that facilitate his pursuit of profit is a logical decision on his part. If we change the criteria from businessman to statesman it is reasonable to presume a similarly logical conclusion on his part that differs from that of a businessman. Apples and Oranges… “Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use… Read more »
Trump is opposed to Obamacare? Is he opposed to the word Obamacare under the Obama brand, or does he actually oppose the substance of the policies that currently constitute the framework known as Obamacare? To my knowledge, he does not oppose the latter, whatever he may say about the former.
In 2000 Trump wrote the following in “The America We Deserve”: “We must have universal healthcare,” wrote Trump. “I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many stories of families ruined by healthcare expenses.” The goal of health care reform, wrote Trump, should be a system that looks a lot like Canada. “Doctors might be paid less than they are now, as is the case in Canada, but they would be able to treat more patients because of the reduction in their paperwork,” he writes. “The Canadian plan also helps Canadians… Read more »
In 2012, Cruz said that we need many more H1Bs.
Here is a good article on Trump’s break with conservative principles and his appeal to a political framework that is anything but small government and freedom:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/21/are-republicans-for-freedom-or-white-identity-politics/
At this stage conservative principles are somewhat irrelevant if those chosen to implement those principles are unable or unwilling to do so. Trumps popularity with the electorate should be viewed as a vote of no confidence in the GOP elite.
Granted Trump may not be the best strategist but he has demonstrated some aptitude at tactics. Schwarzkopf the tactician and Powell the strategist was a winning combination a while back. Likewise a Trump/Cruz partnership could be what we need to restore traditional American policies to Washington.
I love it.
“We are mad at the elite nominating people that are not conservative enough!! So we are going to elect a pro-abortion, pro-eminent domain, anti-free trade, three time married guy who was a big hillary supporter right up to the time he ran for president!! That will show them.”
No… We are nominating a pro-military, pro-business, pro-law in order candidate who (most importantly) is not afraid to brawl with the media. I don’t care how conservative or presidential the Caspar Milquetoast guy you might favor but most likely he will get chewed up and spit out by the liberal media and then apologize for getting his ass kicked. The liberals will stop at nothing to discredit anybody who runs. Anybody who cannot stand their ground and fight back is disqualified from my consideration regardless of their conservative credentials. Trump/Cruz meets those standards. No room for girly men in this… Read more »
Mike, he is not pro business (he supports more tariffs and taxes). He is not pro law (he supports eminent domain). The media loves Trump (he is ratings gold) and therefore he is not really brawling with them. Who is he really brawling with? All the conservatives. Half the people he attacks are fellow republicans and conservative commentators.
If all the conservatives hate your guy, you might be supporting a liberal.
How are tariffs (traditional as Apple Pie) properly applied not pro-business? Take a look at how Harley Davidson was saved from bankruptcy in the ’80s. Taking advantage of eminent domain laws as a commercial developer does not make one anti-law and order. Check out his support from police unions… The media has tried to paint Trump as a racist bigot for his stance on immigration (especially applied to Muslim refugees). It is a bit intellectually dishonest to suggest they are in his court. He is not brawling with “all” the conservatives. The RINO’s maybe… The establishment conservatives that are giving… Read more »
“How are tariffs (traditional as Apple Pie) properly applied not pro-business? ” You really need to read some basic economics. Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlkQRGZEycI //Taking advantage of eminent domain laws as a commercial developer does not make one anti-law and order. Check out his support from police unions…// Eminent domain is not a “law” it is the stealing of property from poorer people by richer people. What trump tried to do (steal property using government) was deemed illegal by the courts by the way. Unions supporting trump does not make him law and order by the way. Unions look out for… Read more »
Don’t waste my time with a YouTube video when the Harley Davidson example is a matter of history. There are appropriate and inappropriate uses of tariffs. Harley Davidson was saved by tariffs and you cannot spin it any other way.
Explain how we should trust the GOP establishment when they have failed to advance a conservative agenda with control of the house and senate. There are reasons why Trump and Cruz are the front-runners by a large margin. The GOP establishment has lost the trust of the electorate. Talking the talk without walking the walk makes you a RINO…
The basics of economics (as the video shows being explained by nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman) are true for all cases. And learning (you are clearly ignorant) is not a waste of time. Cruz is actually a conservative. I am planning on voting for him if he is still in it by Michigan. Trump is not a conservative. I have no idea why those two get lumped together. One is a principled conservative who has been a republican his whole life and one is all over the place and has been a huge liberal most of his life (and… Read more »
If the basics are true for all cases than you should be able to explain the Harley Davidson case. Explain a better defense against “dumping”. If you cannot apply knowledge than you know less than you think…
Maybe you should ask Cruz why he is aligning himself with Trump. The reason why you “have no idea why those two get lumped together” is because you are operating under several false assumptions. If you were more open minded and less stubborn it might be less of a mystery to you…
Listen to what Friedman says. Whether for Harley or anything else, free trade build the national wealth and tariffs reduce it. You can of course “save” a particular business or industry using tariffs but it will always come as a net negative to the whole society. It is a form of income redistribution. But instead of redistributing from the rich to the poor you redistribute from all consumers to a particular industry. On Cruz, I think Cruz is playing really good politics by “drafting” behind Trump. I think that if Cruz was the front runner, he would be taking so… Read more »
No… As I said before one can use tariffs appropriately or inappropriately. An example of an appropriate use of tariffs is to counter dumping by foreign countries i.e. China dumping exports at a loss or the Japanese during the 80’s who likewise were dumping motorcycles at or below cost. If you open your eyes you will see that while Cruz is making a run at the nomination he is also positioning himself for the VP spot. The media will go all out to paint him as a right-wing radical. As VP following a presumed successful Trump presidency he would be… Read more »
I hope you had nice new years… I think we have established I’m a huge Cruz supporter but I believe his best chance long term chances lies with a Trump Presidency. I think the worst scenario for Cruz is for him to win the nomination and then suffer from attacks by the media that paint him as a right-wing radical. A defeat under these circumstances would not only label Cruz as a loser and a radical it would also label the conservative policies he advocates as radical as well. Because of is success as a businessman Trump can brush of… Read more »
“Trumps popularity with the electorate should be viewed as a vote of no confidence in the GOP elite.” Yes, it is that. Nothing more than that. Not an idea, not a plan, not even an expectation. Pro nothing, just anti.
When you don’t do your homework it is likely you will make false statements. How ironic you would make a statement like “Pro nothing, just anti when that mirrors your own analysis?
You did not find any idea’s, plans or expectations but than again you never even looked…
Conservative principles are what got us into this situation. There is, at this point, nothing about America worth conserving.
Trump/Cruz so no one will assassinate Trump?
haha
Raul Labrador would be an outstanding VP candidate for Cruz. He voted ro defund Planned Parenthood
Correct – while Cruz’s weather-vane’s RPMs pale in comparison to Trump’s, he nonetheless does seem to hold his spit-soaked index finger up to the wind occasionally. Cruz in 2011 (While running for senate): “The 14th amendment provides for birthright citizenship. I’ve looked at the legal arguments against it, and I will tell you as a Supreme Court litigator, those arguments are not very good. As much as someone may dislike the policy of birthright citizenship, it’s in the U.S. Constitution. And I don’t like it when federal judges set aside the Constitution because their policy preferences are different.” Cruz in… Read more »
Andy, Haha. I love it when Trump supporters try to dig up stuff in Cruz’s history (like being a little more liberal on immigration in the past). They do not realize that TRUMP WAS A FULL BLOWN DEMOCRAT BACK THEN! Trump criticized Romney for being too hard on immigrants. Trump gave money to Hillary and praised her leadership as secretary of state. Trump gave money to Wiener and Kennedy. And on Kagan and Sotomayor, did you know that Trump stated he would make his pro-abortion sister a supreme court judge?? Whatever flip flop you think Cruz has made, multiply it… Read more »
Sorry – I didn’t make it clear: I’m no Trump supporter. He’s a joke and the fact that he’s still even in public dialogue is confounding.
But to your point – yes – he’s about as consistent as Texas weather was last week:
https://youtu.be/zitZGDJcHAU
I’ll raise you a Kennedy and Roberts.
Cruz because he is the only candidate that might fear God and the battle is the Lord’s.
Fair enough. Yeah – Kennedy is a head scratcher, but also another example of why Reagan was no base candidate like Cruz, as mentioned above. Roberts, though, has been solid, despite his contorted logic on his Obamacare vote. Take, for example, his dissent on Obergefell – brilliant. Now, while your point is valid – that a Republican president may very well appoint a wishy-washy justice – there is no way a Democratic president would do that. Clinton would absolutely get us another Ginsburg or Breyer, while a Republican perhapspossiblymaybemight give us a Kennedy, but much more likely give us a… Read more »
That is what it’s all about… just like an endorsement from Planned Parenthood should (really it should) kill a Republican’s campaign, the approval of the Republican establishment must unmask any candidate as a Conservative In Name Only.
Doug, I have just one question: Will the national debt decrease one bit under President Cruz?
We of course already know the answer. The debt will never be repaid, and the unborn children and grandchildren of Cruz supporters (like you) will be the ones left to face the economic fallout of a Great American Default or hyperinflation.
We know this is true. Let’s stop forgetting what we already know.
Accurate polling seems to have gone the way of the land line.
I’m pretty sure our whole country is perched on the edge of cliff and death is imminent…which may explain why I have not been assigned to the election encouragement committee.
The government, perhaps. But not necessarily the country.
Certain quotes from the Declaration of Independence come to mind…
The best possible outcome of this election season would be the complete destruction of the Republican party.
The best outcome would be a president who appoints pro life and constitutional judges to Scotus. The destruction of the GOP will give communists unchecked power.
I dunno…
Daleiden threw the GOP a soft ball–I’d nearly say he delivered Planned Parenthood’s head on a platter–and the Republicans couldn’t manage to even *merely* defund PP.
If videos of infants being shredded and sold by the PP chop shops can’t be used by the Republicans to show the nature of the Left, then I think you necessarily have to conclude that the problem lies with the Republicans. “Pro-life” doesn’t amount to a whole lot when it comes to our politicians.
The abortion issue is perhaps the last remaining excuse that many have to still hold their nose and vote GOP (perhaps including Christian Histo). Therefore, I’m led to conclude that the last thing the GOP would ever do, at this point, is end abortion.
So, you think there is a grand GOP conspiracy somewhere? Who is in on it?
I don’t think it requires a grand organized conspiracy to simply fail to deliver on one’s stated objective. Of course the GOP is in an uphill battle against the abortion and baby parts industry, but supposing the Democratic Party one day offered to give up the abortion fight on a silver platter, I’m honestly not sure that the GOP would accept it. Based on things like Supreme Court nominees, etc, it seems the current flavor of conservatism is willing and content to conserve the endless struggle for the unborn. It’s tradition. Forget about de-funding a major abortuary, let me know… Read more »
How would it work if there was no coordinated conspiracy? Say we elect Ted Cruz. Cruz is a Chrisitan who attends a southern Baptist church. Your idea is what? When Ginsburg retires, Cruz sets out to nominate a judge and….. then what? You think that the GOP (who?) will pull him aside and say “Ted, we need the abortion issue, nominate a liberal… ok?”
Is that your idea?
Conspiracy or not, the GOP actually has an established track record when it comes to recent Supreme Court nominees. O’Connor did her best to vacate abortion restrictions during her days on the court. There was the turncoat, Souter, who might as well have been appointed by the Democrats. John Stevens was appointed by Ford and defended Roe v Wade as precedent. Anthony Kennedy apparently affirmed a basic right to abortion as well, if limited. Burger, appointed by Nixon, went with the liberals on Roe v Wade, striking state bans on abortion. Blackmun was an out and out champion for abortion… Read more »
Let’s talk specifics. Cruz is elected. This man who would have conservatives to thank for being president and who appears to have a person faith and strict constitutional convictions…… chooses a liberal? How would that happen? If there is a conspiracy (someone pulling the presidential strings) fine…(but that is crazy town) but if it is just Cruz, you think that at some point he will think “wait, if I put a pro lifer on the court, I will not get elected again…. so liberal it is!” Do you realize how crazy that is? Do you really believe that?
Histo wrote: Let’s talk specifics. Cruz is elected. This man who would have conservatives to thank for being president and who appears to have a person faith and strict constitutional convictions…… chooses a liberal? How would that happen? Histo invites me to talk specifics, but then repeats the same hypotheticals and “what if”s. I simply point him back to the GOP historical facts. Histo wants to talk about a hypothetical Cruz, when, instead, I have been speaking this entire time about the GOP record as a whole. Histo thinks it unconscionable that someone conservative like Cruz could ever pick a… Read more »
I am just curious about the thought process. You seem to think that picking liberals is a political calculation. Do you think that Cruz at some point would say “wait a second, if I overturn Roe, the abortion issue will go away and the GOP will get less votes…. “?
Only if, in its wake, there is a truly righteous party to take its place. Nature abhors a vacuum, but ProgLibs love a power vacuum.
If the Devil invites you to sit down and play chess, it’s probably a better choice to flip the board over and spit in his eye. There is no reason that Christians must continue to believe in the legitimacy of the USA.
Haha. You have no idea how good things are now. Wait until the communists take the supreme court (one more judge). You will be arrested quickly (thanks to your flag).
America is a communist country; arrangement of the Supreme Court won’t deeply affect that one direction or the other.
I’d rather wait til my sons are grown before we have to fight again. But
I’d rather fight than have to raise them to be Americans.
Yes it will. Right now you can wave your stupid rebel flag. Not with one more judge. You will be a criminal who needs reeducation.
What if Trump wins, disappoints in a number of ways (as expected) but closes the border? That’s a good Presidency in my opinion. That sets the table for traditionalists to out breed the secularists in a few generations and reclaim the country.
So, he appoints his sister to the court (as he said he would) who is a pro abortion liberal, we then have 5 communists on the court (a majority) and every conservative principle is deemed unconstitutional. Guns are ruled unconstitutional. Public expressions of faith are unconstitutional. Religious speech is deemed hate speech (and illegal). Churches are taxed punitively. Discrimination against Christians is required for corporations (if a company allows bigots to work there they are being unsafe).
That is the best next step in your crazy mind?
I get what you’re saying, CH, but for someone to be appointed to the SCOTUS, someone else has to retire. The only way for the majority to shift as you propose is for a conservative to retire and open a spot for Trump’s sister…but I thought the most likely retirement was Ginsburg. If she leaves and another “communist” takes her place, it’s break even, not a shifting of power as you propose.
You do realize that Scalia is 79 right? Kennedy is 79 too. And all the conservatives are over 60. You want to bet our nation on the hope that these old guys are all going to keep kicking for the next 8 years? Are you crazy?
No, I didn’t realize how old they all are…sorry. Time seems to have frozen for me, and I don’t know when that began. Perhaps I am also getting old.
So yeah, it would seems that 3 – 5 could be retired/replaced within the next 2 election cycles, and that bears great import.
Well, with president Trump, he said his pro abortion liberal sister would be an excellent choice for the court. Welcome to the USSA.
Einstein said the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. You think an establishment Republican is going to change this country for the better? I think you are the crazy one. Is Trump unprincipled? Yes. Is he likely to stick to the constitutional role of the Presidency? No. Will he follow through on his promise to build a wall and secure the border? My guess is yes as it is the linch-pin of his entire campaign. Supreme court rulings can be overturned. Changing the demographics of the nation as we have… Read more »
If you are in a battle and have been losing ground, it is not crazy to keep fighting.
You know what is crazy? To turn and start fighting for the other side. Trump is on the other side.
“That sets the table for traditionalists to out breed the secularists in a few generations and reclaim the country.”
I think you are positing a false dichotomy between secularists and traditionalists.
Seems like a pretty straightforward dichotomy to me. There’s throne-and-altar traditionalism on one side, and the French Revolution on the other. America was an unsuccessful attempt to get them to live together peacefully.
Of the traditionalism in America how much is throne-and-alter?
America has essentially no right-wing tradition; the USA was founded on liberal values.
In which case closing the borders wouldn’t allow the secularists to be out-bred therefore false dichotomy.
Closing the border is just a preliminary step to gain some breathing room. The job isn’t done until the entire current power structure (bureaucrats, media, universities, and all) is dismantled and removed.
But then you’re talking about founding the “ashv empire” not breeding out the secularists.
The notion of “outbreeding the opposition” assumes that you can keep all your children from apostasizing. Not a safe bet, especially when the dominant culture is controlled by your enemies who specialize in propaganda.
agreed.
Republicans are red Democrats are blue Neither one Gives a crap about you. And that “you” isn’t evangelical Christians; it’s the population at large. There are three Republican parties. There are Christian conservative Republicans, who primarily care about ending abortion and gay marriage. There are libertarian Republicans, who primarily care about small government (including supporting abortion and gay marriage). And there are Wall Street Republicans, who only care about making money. It’s a fragile coalition, and the problem the GOP has is that if any of those factions were to walk away, the coalition would collapse and Democrats would be… Read more »
What the GOP can do is to be a bulwark against unchecked communism. Is it constitutional right to own a gun? Not according to 4 of the 9 judges on the court. Is the public expression of religion a constitutional right? Not according to 4 of the 9 judges on the court. Do private organizations (churches, parachurch orgs, etc) have a right to speak against gay marriage? Not according to 4 of the 9 judges on the court. Everyone bad mouthing the republicans is completely ignorant to the fact that things could be much much much worse in this nation.… Read more »
I understand what you’re saying, Histo, but I find myself sympathizing more and more with, in regards to the GOP, ashv and Barnabas. Why? Because the GOP *doesn’t* act as a bulwark against communism or leftism or the murder of infants or the enlargement of government or meddling overseas and disrupting political powers or growing taxes. John Roberts declared Obamacare a tax and therefore constitutional, and then redefined plain words to keep [and] protect it; Republicans bark about how they’re “pro-life” but can’t even remove tax monies from PP *even after* the CMP videos; the GOP moans if we don’t… Read more »
That coalition is fragile indeed. Remember the shock and dismay that Christian Republicans felt when it became clear that big business is solidly pro-gay marriage and solidly against freedom-of-religion legislation. Remember how quickly Arizona and Indiana caved at the prospect of losing sports franchises, airline hubs, and tourism.
I get all that. I can see how it could add up to Don’t Vote. However, the sum of GOP fault doesn’t equal Vote for Trump until you add in malice and spite.
See, I think the GOP has been running on malice and spite for 50 years, ever since Nixon’s Southern strategy in 1968, and in a very real sense Trump’s malice and spite are nothing more than that strategy coming back to bite them. If you’re going to run election campaigns on fear, anger, hatred and resentment — which is what a significant amount of GOP electioneering amounts to — then it’s hardly surprising that people filled with fear, anger, hatred and resentment gravitate to your party, and that eventually there will be enough of them to reach critical mass.
No more so than the Democrats, just different targets. For Trumpites the GOP itself is the target.
“There are three Republican parties. There are Christian conservative Republicans, who primarily care about ending abortion and gay marriage. There are libertarian Republicans, who primarily care about small government (including supporting abortion and gay marriage). And there are Wall Street Republicans, who only care about making money.” And as anyone who has paid attention to this country for the last 40 years knows, it’s only the Wall Street Republicans who have any power to move meaningful policy. Which is why libertarian Republicans will never dent the budget deficit and Christian conservative Republicans will never make the nation a more holy… Read more »
Trump fans – Here are a list of politically charged cases that will be decided by SCOTUS this year. http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/3913384-supreme-court-decide-politically-charged-cases-2016 Most of these will be 5-4 decisions. There are 4 communists and 4 relatively conservative judges. And Kennedy will be wavering back and forth. There is a good chance that we will win some of them (and lose some). If trump becomes president and either Scalia (79) or Kennedy (79) dies or retires, Trump said his sister is an phenomenal choice to replace them. His sister is a pro abortion liberal. If Trump were president, and he nominated his sister… Read more »
Here is some detail on his sister (the phenominal choice to replace conservatives with). Maryanne Trump Barry wrote a heated judicial decision in favor of giving constitutional protection to partial-birth abortion. She called a New Jersey law against partial birth abortion a “desperate attempt” to undermine Roe v. Wade. It was, she wrote, “based on semantic machinations, irrational line-drawing, and an obvious attempt to inflame public opinion instead of logic or medical evidence.” It made no difference where the fetus was when it “expired.”
So… what’s your alternative?
Haha. I don’t know, I think there may be one or two…. or 14 other candidates who are NOT committed TO NOMINATING A COMMUNIST TO THE COURT???
Are you seriously saying that a guy who is committed to nominating a liberal to the court is the best choice?
I’m asking what you think should be done.
I am saying pick one of the other GOP candidates. I like Cruz. But any of them are better than a guy who explicitly supports a communist on the SCOTUS.
All your immigration ideas will be “unconstitutional” as soon as another liberal gets on that court. We have two 79 year old’s who are not full blown communists. If Trump gets elected, you better hope he deports all your illegals before he nominates his sister. There will be no deporting after that.
The fact that you and so many others are fixated on Trump suggests to me that he’s already President in all but name. He’s controlling the discussion of issues and
the other candidates are defining themselves in relationship to him.
Cruz is doing a good job moving towards Trump’s positions, but he’s not nearly as entertaining so I wouldn’t vote for him.
You do realize that being outrageous and getting attention is different than being president right?
Cruz is not moving towards picking COMMUNIST scotus members like Trump. But, yeah, he is not as “entertaining” so who cares about freedom, unborn babies and all that when we can get a laugh out of a reality TV star. Amirite?
Why on earth do you believe that choice of President will affect how many abortions are performed in the USA? Is there any evidence that it matters at all?
Abortion is legal because of Roe V Wade. Scotus decided that. Abortion on demand has been rolled back dramatically over the past 40 years and abortion has dropped. When these laws have been challenged, the liberal SCOTUS have ruled against and the conservative ones have ruled for. Kennedy has been on both sides (sometimes for and sometimes against).
Do you really not know this stuff?
By the way, Trump’s sister (the “phenomenal choice for scotus”) was very much against the new restrictions.
I know this stuff, I also know that there’s zero evidence that any Republican can or will significantly change this, especially from the White House.
I just showed you the evidence. Over the past 40 years (since the SCOTUS gave abortion on demand) the SCOTUS has allowed abortion restrictions to stand. The GOP nominees (such as Scalia, Robert, Alito and Thomas… and even Kennedy) have been the ones that have allowed these laws to stand. Trump’s sister (his first choice for SCOTUS) was very against ANY restrictions. Trump himself (until he started running for president) was against all restrictions. Trump will = murdered babies.
I read recently that the trend is towards chemical rather than surgical abortions. These do not even necessarily involve a doctor’s cooperation. I foresee a time when abortions will take place at home and when even the few restrictions there are will become moot. But I agree with you that the choice of president will do little more than send a pro-life message.
You are naive.
I expect that I am, but how so in reference to this?
Anyone who thinks there are 4 communists on the Supreme Court is disqualified from being taken seriously about anything else.
What would you call the democrat appointees?
Slightly left of center. Depending on the issue, sometimes not even that far left of center.
How are you defining communist?
“Slightly left of center”?? Have any of the Democratically appointed judges ever ruled against the Democratic agenda?
And the objectives of the democratic party are almost indistinguishable from the objectives of the socialists/communists.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/dems-new-agenda-hauntingly-similar-to-communism/
You still haven’t told me how you’re defining communist. The classical definition, per Marx and Engels, is someone who doesn’t believe in private property. It is not a catch-all insult for anyone you don’t agree with. And yes, the Supreme Court, including its Democratic appointed justices, routinely rules against positions the Democratic party has taken, at least as often as GOP appointed judges rule against Republican positions. Just last term there were decisions that upheld the anti-consumer Arbitration Act, that ruled against death row inmates, that made it more difficult to sue the police, and that made it harder for… Read more »
Look at the Communist/Socialist agenda and look at the democratic agenda. How are they different?
Is the Democratic party calling for state ownership of all the means of production? For the nationalization of all industry and resources? For the abolition of all private wealth and all private entrepreneurial activity no matter how small? For an entirely centralized economy with the state deciding each individual’s occupation and remuneration? This is what I understand as a communist agenda, and much as I disagree with many planks of the Democratic party platform, I don’t see a commitment to Marxism as described above;
The communist party is not calling for that stuff “yet” either. The Democrats are the stealth communists. They have the same agenda in practice, they just do not talk about the end game in the same way.
The communist party has been calling for that “stuff” for over 150 years, ever since Marx and Engels were alive. As Jillybean points out, communist means something very specific: Someone who does not believe in private property.
As for overlapping agendas, Mussolini made the trains run on time, which I agree with. Does that make me a fascist?
It’s fairly clear at this point you don’t do definitions very well.
” Someone who does not believe in private property.” This is not the definition of communism (or at least an oversimplification), but given the above definition, you have accurately described the Democratic party. They hate private property. – They are for confiscation of private property via income tax – They are for confiscation of private property via imminent domain – They are for confiscation of private property via civil asset forfeiture – They are for confiscation of private property via anti-gun legislation – They are for confiscation of private property via “equality” legislation (see cake bakers, photographers, and florists) –… Read more »
I’m a Democrat. I oppose eminent (not “imminent”) domain except under fairly narrow circumstances. I’m pro gun. I’m opposed to civil asset forfeiture unless someone has actually been convicted of a crime, and I oppose the war on drugs altogether. I don’t think cake bakers and florists and photographers should be required to facilitate events that violate their consciences; and I’m close to an absolutist on free speech. I’m not sure what targeting of Christian schools and businesses you’re talking about, but it looks like the only thing on your list that this Democrat would completely disagree with you about… Read more »
http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/29/communist-party-usa-chairman-vows-cooperation-with-democratic-party/
Communism is American, anyway. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Community
The most liberal electable Democrat would be considered right of center in Canada. The most right wing Canadian conservative would be considered pretty liberal here. It all depends on the definitions.
Say what you like about Trump, nobody else has a campaign with people this willing to trade blows with the media: https://twitter.com/KatrinaPierson/status/682051173059170305
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsOlXidHXRE
Trump’s certainly no saint. But that hardly matters at this juncture.
Not a saint is not the issue. The issue is that his political philosophy is closer to democrats (the problem) than anything else. And to the extent that it is different, it is just that he is more fascist than communist.
Republicans and Democrats have the same political philosophy: liberal democracy. Their other differences are trivial.
One of those two parties would like to have your logo illegalized in the usa. They would probably also like to have you thrown in jail for putting it online.
You are so naive. You think it cannot get worse. It can my friend and it will. The GOP is not perfect but they are the only thing standing between us and full blown tyranny.
Republicans are the “party of Lincoln” and still proud of it. Not so different.
Of course I think it can get worse — but I do not believe that Republicans wish to stand in the way of “tyranny”, nor do I think “tyranny” is the worst thing that is likely to happen.
Clinton vs. Trump is not a choice that anyone should be forced to make, and I will certain not support either. But I can’t support Cruz. Cynical people often use the excuse of, “Well, all politicians lie.” And of course they’re right. But I’ve seen Cruz lie so often and with so little concern that having someone with that moral fiber in office would sicken me. He seems to use lying as a debate tactic – to catch the other side off guard, subvert their argument, etc. I’m not saying that Trump or Clinton was any better on that front,… Read more »
The thing that worries me with Cruz is that no one he knows seems to like him He held that great climate hearing with Mark Steyn but not one Republican attended. I would think he would have one friend. There are staunch conservatives there like Sessions and Lee
Dang, 305 comments.
Someone may have already said this then, but … Trump just may be a Samson moment. Samson would never qualify as an elder at Doug’s church, but there was a time when he was needed …