A plea to the all but three candidates: Drop out. NOW.
I’m totally on board with this:
There are three candidates. Trump, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. No one else has a path to the nomination. The rest are in the way.
Dr. Carson, you are a good guy who has zero chance of winning the nomination. Zero. You are locking up a set of votes that need to gravitate to the three real candidates. Your campaign’s chaos and your regrettable whimpering over Ted Cruz’s tactics is driving down your stock…
John Kasich, you did well in New Hampshire, and as goes New Hampshire goes so goes absolutely nowhere else. You’ve made your point about why the nominee should consider you for the veep slot. Time to walk away.
And Jeb. Time to choose, Jeb. Your dad was a patriot. Your brother was a patriot. Are you a patriot? If Trump is so awful that you are compelled to put up vaguely critical billboards about him, then you need to sacrifice yourself and get out of the race so someone else can beat him…
This is truly it, conservatives.
I’ve seen these sentiments elsewhere today, too. Will the candidates heed it? I really, really don’t think so, not yet anyway (and for Bush maybe never). Of course, the voters could heed it, and just not vote for those three people. But I don’t think that will happen at this point, either.
The only way to beat Trump is for everyone to drop except Cruz or Rubio. Otherwise it is 40-30-30 all the way to the convention, assuming Trump doesn’t blow up. Maybe Cruz and Rubio should toss a coin to see who will drop (or take the VP slot:)).
Your posts and the behavior of the Trumpers convinces me that Hillary will be our next president. She starts with the 242 electoral votes from the deep blue states. If Trump loses the nomination his supporters hate the other candidates so much that they will stay home or he will run third-party and they will vote for him. Either way, the Pubbies cannot win without a third of their voters.
If this analysis is correct, the best we can hope for is a socialist democracy in the US patterned after the Europeans. We have the historical US blessing of oceans between us and the Muslim, Russian, and Chinese barbarians. I think you and I are about the same age so maybe we can hope to live out our lives in relative peace.
Note that I am not giving up but the best way I have figured out to resist is contributing to Ted Cruz’s campaign. Unfortunately, I do not have enough money to make a real difference but that does not mean that I should not try.
I should have mentioned that if Trump wins the nomination, I and a lot of people like some of your posters will not vote for him. Thankfully for my sanity, I live in California so it does not matter how I vote. Either way it looks to me like the Republican party is self-destructing and cannot win the election.
Scalia’s death has made what was already a critical election, hyper critical. We cannot afford to have this ass-clown (Trump) be the nominee, and we cannot afford to f*ck around and lose this election. We’re fighting for our lives now my friends. This is all predicated on the idea that the Republicans in the senate will, yanno, actually act like Republicans for once. If there was ever a hill to die on, holding off Obama’s nomination of a Supreme Court Justice, is the one.
Would like to see Trump, Cruz and Carson stay in. Why Carson? Because I think he is a 2nd choice for non-establishment pick, if people want to move away from Trump.
The others can go leap off a bridge.
Also, I wish people would just calm down. I am so confounded by the complete hatred for Trump supporters and Trump himself. He might not be your choice, but I was forced to vote for McCain and Dole. The Republican is always the better choice than the Democrat.
K-E:
“Hatred” is an emotionally-laden word that is not appropriate.
I gave Trump a chance and I had very few initial feelings about him. I have observed him closely, read a great deal of what he has written and said, and read a great deal about his life. A great deal of what I have learned about him is execrable.
I’m not going to fight that fight here with you again. I have stated my case at great length, and only the summary version of it—there’s much more, but that would take a book.
Nor have I ever expressed hatred (much less “complete hatred”) for Trump or for his supporters. However, I’ve seen a fair amount of hatred coming from them, and I deplore that as well.
It is somewhat of a mirror of Trump’s Orwellian charge that he gets along with everyone and it’s Cruz who’s “a nasty man,” when Trump is nasty on a regular daily and at times even hourly basis.
And please stop with this forced to vote business. I am getting very very tired of it. I had it out with commenter “rickl” about it yesterday. Take a look; it begins here. My first response is here. The discussion continues after that for a while.
By the way, I don’t think Trump is a Republican. But it’s not his label or lack thereof that matters to me.
K-E Says: I am so confounded by the complete hatred for Trump supporters and Trump himself. He might not be your choice, but I was forced to vote for McCain and Dole. The Republican is always the better choice than the Democrat.
————
I do not hate the Trumpers. I just think they are fools. But Trump is an entirely different matter. He behaves like a narcissistic charlatan similar to Benito Mussolini, Juan Peron, Hugo Chavez, etc. He is no Republican by my definition and not better than the Democrat.
@Tom:
Bush I gave us Souter, a reliable progressive vote, and Thomas, the best Justice on SCOTUS.
Bush II gave us Alito and Roberts. Roberts twice decided in favor of Obamacare.
Trump has harsh words for Roberts and high praise for Thomas.He has disavowed appointing his sister.
Will he stand by that? Who knows?
Bob_CA:
I likewise see the Trump phenomenon as being likely to ensure the election of Hillary Clinton, who otherwise would be losing. It is one of the reasons for my intense frustration with Trump and his supporters.
I think if nominated, he will lose. And if not nominated, he will either go 3rd party or his supporters will stay home anyway, or at least a lot of them. The only question is how many.
One wild card, though, is that Hillary’s supporters are very lukewarm. Trump would energize them to come out and vote against him; someone like Rubio would soothe them and they’d stay home, so that even with the Trumpers’ defection Rubio might pull it out.
But first he would have to be nominated. Or run 3rd party himself, a thought that has occurred to me. Cruz also might do it, but he has little ability to pull the Clinton supporters to him.
@Tom:
Update. Trump says
K-E, because Trump is a narcissistic lunatic who’s obsessed with himself and nothing else. He’s a standard schoolyard bully with no plausible plan to implement any of the good works he proposes to do. He’s a poser in every sense of the word, and has no ideological anchor. He himself has claimed that he can be anything he wants to be. He’s a showman and a snake-oil salesman and completely unpredictable. In almost every instance, I would agree with you that the Republican is always a better choice than the Democrat, except I’ve seen no real evidence that Trump is even a Republican. His positions are much more Democrat in nature, than Republican. This man in charge of the strongest military in the world, in the most powerful country in the world is frightening. His supporters seem oblivious to all appeals to reason, somehow or another able to transform each of Trumps apparent weaknesses into some sort of genius strength, that only they seem to posses the profound intellect to understand. They’re every bit as delusional as Obama’s supporters were. That’s a start.
PatD:
I think the point is not what Trump says now, it’s the evidence of his life and things he has said (and done) right along. Of course he’s going to say that now. Duh.
My ‘hate’ comment was directed at ‘Tom’ who called Trump an ‘ass-clown’ and used the f word. Not at you, neo.
I just think that is not necessary in this discussion.
I’m interested to know why some don’t see Cruz in the same light…charlatan, snake oil salesman. His evangelical events really turn me off. Reminds me of either Jerry Fallwell or Glenn Beck’s crocodile tears on FoxNews. But I want to keep him on my list…so it is a tough go for me. I think Cruz would be a very hard sell to America after some of that stuff. It will come up in the general. Just keep that in mind.
@neo-neocon:
The Real Clear Politics Polls show Trump is within striking distance against Hillary though not doing as well as Cruz and Rubio. Fox News has him +3, Cruz +7, Rubio +9.
I think he’ll do to Hillary what he has done to the GOP field – out-maneuver and out-campaign her.
If the GOP puts up another spineless establishment GOP candidate, the Trump rubes will stay home. They might come out for Cruz, although Cruz is burning a lot of bridges with Trump supporters.
And, courtesy of Ann Althouse, there will be a special place in hell for the Trump supporters who stay home.
http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/a19809
PatD, it doesn’t matter what Trump says, because he’ll never get elected. First of all, myself, and a large number of other Republicans won’t vote for him. Second, he’s behind Hillary and Sanders both in EVERY recent poll. Third, he’ll ignite the left and get them out to vote. I know a lot of people hate the electability argument, but Cruz won’t win the general election. I adore the guy. I think he’s the smartest of the bunch, and by far the most consistently conservative. The left has already destroyed him. If you know anyone who is even moderately liberal, mention Cruz’s name to them. They instantly begin foaming at the mouth. That brings me to Rubio, his deal with Chuck Schumer on immigration bothered me. I think it was a strategic move on Schumer’s part to derail Rubio’s candidacy. I think the Democrats could see him coming a mile away, were afraid of him, and they wanted to wound him a long time before the nomination process began. Other than the immigration issue, I’ve seen no other evidence of him being either establishment or even moderate. His record seems to suggest a relatively hard core conservative. The other alternatives are Bush and Kasich, both of whom are DEFINITELY establishment, and moderate, if not liberal. I also believe the Rubio has the best chance of being elected. He can actually get some of the more moderate Democrats to cross party lines. If we have a sufficiently conservative congress and senate, and a conservative bench, we’ll be in good shape. I don’t see a president Rubio vetoing legislation from a conservative Senate and Congress.
K-E:
Because Cruz promised he would fight for conservative causes in the Senate, and he has.
Because Cruz’s entire life has been devoted to the Constitution:
Why would I care what his religion is? As long as he doesn’t mess with mine (and he doesn’t), why would it be an issue?
Correction, there was one poll, taken in early January, in which Trump beats Clinton.
@Tom – Rubio = Amnesty. Look who is financing his campaign. I can tell you that Rubio will never be trusted on immigration by a large swathe of conservative voters.
If it’s the guy you like vs Hillary, you’ll certainly vote for him.
If it’s the guy you hate vs Hillary you’ll probably vote for him, maybe depending on his VP pick. Suppose he chose Kasich? Would you still stay home?
To Tom and others here and elsewhere who make the Cruz is electability argument. We have been down this road with Dole, McCain and Romney. We need to stop thinking what other people think about a candidate and do what we think is best.
More to the point is that I think one of the greatest insights into the last election is that Obama ran a “base” campaign–motivate your own base to vote for you. Romney ran an appeal-to-independents campaign (hey look, we won independent by 8 points!!!). Obama knew the new truth. All elections now and for the foreseeable future are based on motivating your own base to vote. There are much greater returns on motivating hard core and luke-warm supporters to vote than to motivate independents and moderates who have no idea what they believe. Going forward, both parties need (the D’s already do it) to be encouraging hate and fear of the other party. For the D’s its war on women; war on blacks; war on immigrants etc. From the R’s it needs to be war on 2nd amendment; war on unborn babies; war on our military; war on blacks (but waged by immigrant mexicans). etc. Sounds great doesn’t it? This is the country we live in now. To win an election, you need to create unprecedented levels of animosity. Lose the country to win an election played out indefinitely.
When Trump first announced his campaign I considered him a Clinton ploy to muddy the gop water. Later I thought he really wanted the nomination. Now I am back to my first hunch, blostered by Trump’s announcement in SC that the RNC has gone back on its pledge for his pledge to not go third party. And of course he could not resist the usual they are all liars, liars, liars, liars.
If Trump fails to place first in SC it will be amusing to watch his hissy fit. He is beginning to reveal his true colors. Keep the pressue on Cruz with those hilarious ads, they must be driving Trump up a wall.
Meanwhile: ALL HAIL the DONALD THE PURE, THE ALL KNOWING, THE CHAMPION OF THE REPUBLIC!
PatD, how do you define amnesty? I see amnesty as granting citizenship to people who are in the country illegally, with no process for which they earn citizenship. I have a problem with that. I don’t necessarily have a problem with allowing people who are in the country illegally to stay, and begin some sort of naturalization process in which they achieve citizenship. It would include a lengthy period of time in which they would be required to obey the law, pay taxes, and contribute to the country. They would also be required to pay any and all fees associated with citizenship if one were to go through the normal process.I suppose I should clarify my stance on illegal immigration. My preference would be that we deport every single person who’s in the country illegally. I don’t see that as being realistic. So, my next best choice is to strengthen border security, primarily by giving the border patrol the resources it needs to do the job. Secondly, there needs to be a law that hammers any company caught with illegals in their employ so hard that it will severely damage them, if not put them out of business. Third, we need some sort of guest worker program, and some way for any who might remain in the country to apply for and achieve citizenship.
PatD:
Hey, I’ve got an idea!
Maybe we should just elect Trump for an 8-year term, and then Bloomberg for 8 years, and then Soros. We could throw the Kochs in there, too.
Of course, they’d all be too old by then, but I think perhaps you get the idea. Perhaps. Your current point of view seems to be that no one can run except multi-billionaires, because everyone who takes money is corrupt and multi-billionaires are not. It is to laugh, if it weren’t so sad. But hey, Trump says it, so it must be so.
I’ve had this same argument with you many times. Suffice to say at this point that I’ll take the current system over that one.
Parker, if I were just a little more of a conspiracy theorist, I would believe that Trump is a Democratic plant, sent here to blow up the Republican nomination process, in a year when we had a number of great candidates (including some who’ve already been forgotten like Walker.), and they didn’t have shit. There is even, sort of, some precedent for this kind of behavior.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/todd-akin-missouri-claire-mccaskill-2012-121262_full.html#.VsJJoiArLmh
@Tom:
Anything that gives illegals legal status is amnesty. There is nothing to stop a future Democrat administration from taking the next step and grating them voting rights. Gerry Brown is trying to do that in California. If you want the Democrats to have a permanent voting bloc of 10-20 million welfare recipients and low-wage workers.
I actually think they can be deported because Eisenhower was able to do it in “Operation Wetback”. Horrible name but he sent millions back. Enforcing existing laws would be a good place to start. Enforcing e Verify and hammering employers who employ illegals would help. Cutting off welfare, including schools, public housing and food stamps would help. Deporting any illegal caught committing any crime would help. Impounding remittances of money earned illegally would help. Ending birthright citizenship retroactively would help (that is needed because the parents of anchor babies qualify for welfare). I see we agree on many of these measures.
Yeah, we agree on almost everything, except the naturalization process. If they became citizens they would have voting rights anyway. I don’t have a problem with that. I also am not as convinced as many seem to be that they would automatically become a solid democratic voting block. I think Ike was dealing with a much different set of laws, and a much different court system. I don’t think that’s a relevant comparison.
To put a finer point on this, I used to travel frequently to El Paso. You see easily see across the border, and see what kind of conditions the people in Juarez are faced with. Most of the homes are little shacks without a pot to piss in, or a window to throw it out of. I’ve often thought about what it would be like to stand on the other side of the border, and see the relative wealth and prosperity in El Paso. Then to look in the eyes of my child and have them say “Daddy, I’m hungry”. I’d cross the border illegally, and I’d do it in a heart beat, if it meant feeding my kids and taking care of my family.
@neo-neocon:
It’s a crappy system when a billionaire buffoon with bouffant hair is running against politicians funded by billionaires.
Cruz’s ground game in SC is being run by a super PAC. Smart move on his part, except campaigns aren’t supposed to co-ordinate with super PACs. It looks like Cruz has outsourced his campaign’s ground-game to Robert Mercer and company. Cambridge Analytics will make it very targeted and effective. No doubt other campaigns will follow suit. Do you like where that is headed?
My point is that system has delivered politicians who are oblivious to the wishes of the people. Even that wouldn’t be so bad, except everything they do plunges the country further into debt, further away from its founding values, and destroys the future for our children and grandchildren.
The founders envisaged a system where successful citizens would stand for office to serve their fellow citizens and go home after a term or two. How do we get back to such a system when only a billionaire can afford to do that?
PatD Says:
They might come out for Cruz, although Cruz is burning a lot of bridges with Trump supporters.
I really can’t believe I just read that.
I’ve been fan of Breitbart since that site went up. It was my go-to site for news of interest to conservatives. I commented regularly and it was invariably filled with civil comments.
Then, around September it was invaded by swarms of the most uncivil, obnoxious commenters I’d never seen there before. Since then it’s been nothing attack, attack, attack on whoever was closest to Trump, mostly Cruz. They never gave us positive reasons to prefer Trump, just spread lies, rumors and innuendos about any non-Trump candidate.
They went nuts with the crappy birther issue, and are still at it. Most of the worst have private disqus profiles so you can’t easily find out where they came from or what they’ve said in the past.
I spent a lot of time at first trying to explain that Cruz and Trump should be allies, not enemies, so stop trashing Cruz.
They didn’t care. Now I can’t even stand going there.
So, please, if you want to blame anyone for alienating others, please look to Trump and his nasty supporters.
PatD:
In addition, everything I’ve read about Mercer says he’s a conservative. What exactly are conservative politicians who aren’t billionaires supposed to do; run against the 100 billionaires backing Hillary on the cheap?
I told you that the Trumpers would soon be here, neo. Good luck trying to keep it civil.
geokstr:
PatD thinks only multi-billionaires are free of corruption, don’t you know?
And PatD has been commenting here for a while, and so far has behaved himself more or less. However, I can wield the ban hammer on the more abusive ones, and have definitely done so.
You haven’t been here long enough to remember that I initially began the blog on Blogger/blogspot, but had to move the whole thing here in order to gain greater ability to ban, because my blog had basically been taken over by trolls and flamers. This was around 2008.
The religious aspect of Cruz’s campaign is what bothers me…not his religion itself. I am not concerned about how he will run the government, but I am concerned about his overt, Bible-thumping campaigning will be used against him in the general.
That’s fine that YOU don’t seem to have a problem with what Cruz is doing, I’m just telling you it won’t go over well in a general election if he keeps this up. He will look like a religious, right-wing nutjob. It is already being played up on left-wing news sites. It will certainly be picked up by the Dems in the general.
I compare Cruz to Carson, who is also open about his Christianity…and think that Carson is less fervent about his faith and how it comes into play in the primaries.
Just making an observation about how this will hurt Cruz if he is the nominee and how that will make his path to the presidency that much more difficult.
PatD, I am a firm believer that the people get the government they deserve under our form of government. It’s not the billionaires, are the politicians, or anyone else’s fault but our own. We have a responsibility to be informed, and to at least get out and vote. If we don’t, it’s our own fault. I will say I’m a firm believer in term limits. I don’t think the founders ever envisioned a permanent political class.
@geokstr:
Politicians have no choice but to accept donations from billionaires. It is naive to think that such donations have no influence. Paul Singer favors open borders, so his PAC supports Rubio.
Mercer is smart and pro-business. He supports Club For Growth, which has an agenda I’d mostly agree with. I don’t see that he is for opening the borders to illegal immigrants. For that reason, Cruz is probably preferable to Rubio.
Trump could just as easily have picked a candidate, set up a super PAC and seeded it with $20 million dollar donation. That would haven a heckuva of a lot easier and cheaper than actually running. If he really was a stalking horse for Hillary, he would have set a super PAC to support her.
I try to present the reasons why I support Trump in a reasonable manner. If he wavers on my issues, I’ll abandon him in a nanosecond.
PatD:
Do you actually know anything about Operation Wetback, other than what Trump told you?
(1) It was not “millions,” it was a million (although it is estimated that about another half million left voluntarily as a result). Today’s illegal immigrants number over 10 times that, by estimate.
(2) It was done in tandem with the Mexican government, which cooperated and was an integral part of it (they did the placement in Mexico). It only involved Mexicans, too. In contrast, today’s illegal immigrants are from many many different countries.
(3) It was much more local, since the illegal Mexican immigrants were more local in parts of this country:
(4) Even while the program was going on, illegal immigration continued, and its ineffectiveness is one reason why the program ended. There were also some deaths.
You can find a lot more detail here. I will add that the workers in the 50s were mostly seasonal farm workers who tended to come back and forth periodically anyway, unlike today when we have a lot of families who’ve been living here for a long time. Very different population, with very different optics.
In Operation Wetback, they pretty much knew where to find them (mostly farms in certain states) and just went and rounded them up. Not so today—not at all.
Trump is throwing his supporters a big fish, giving few details, and hoping people will just trust his great expertise. But what is Trump expert at? Building resorts and big real estate projects and golf courses. He really is expert at that, and served a lengthy apprenticeship at his father’s knee learning every single aspect of the business before he was allowed to have some seed money for his own projects. But there is absolutely no carry-over to this sort of operation, which he knows nothing about.
@Tom:
We non-progressives did inform ourselves, donated to candidates and voted. We even got the results we wanted: a GOP house in 2010 and a GOP senate in 2014. Who could ask for anything more? A better candidate than Romney in 2012 maybe.
What did we get? An amnesty bill that passed the Senate and came perilously close to passing the House. The omnibus bill that funds Obama’s agenda 100%, including Obamacare and massive Muslim immigration. These are not the things we voted for and they are not the things we were promised.
We have a situation where politicians are no longer accountable to voters. Once a politician gains office, it is very difficult for challengers to win primaries against them. If a politician is forced out of office, it is usually a loss to an opponent in the general. Incumbency gives a politician a huge advantage over challengers. As you say, term limits would be wonderful. But, who gets to decide? The career politicians.
My low opinion of career politicians was lowered even more when I read Peter Schweizer’s book Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets. A fast read on Kindle and stomach turning.
I know it is a waste of internet bandwidth but here goes:
PatD: That would haven a heckuva of a lot easier and cheaper than actually running. If he really was a stalking horse for Hillary, he would have set a super PAC to support her.
Trump is a narcissist who loves the attention he is getting so it is a lot more than money. That being said, somehow billionaires like Ross Perot seem to show up in Clinton elections. Trump has had close connections to the Clintons for decades so why not do them a favor, for which he will be richly rewarded, and have fun at the same time.
PatD: I try to present the reasons why I support Trump in a reasonable manner. If he wavers on my issues, I’ll abandon him in a nanosecond.
I do not believe that. You duck and weave on Trump just like his other fanatical supporters. I will give you that you are smart enough to be able to adopt the culture Neo maintains on this blog but you are basically here to sow FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt).
Bob_CA:
PatD tends to be very polite. He puts up lots of pro-Trump things, and he often (not always) ignores the arguments against them and then just puts them up again in a different form at a different place and time.
One of the good things about PatD’s presence is that he acts as a kind of backboard for arguments. For example, today one of his comments caused me to return to the Operation Wetback suggestion of Trump (although Trump didn’t use that term) and notice all the yuuuge differences between that time and now and that situation and this one, differences Trump and his supporters never ever mention.
PatD,
I’m not referring to people who have been involved and voted and such. I’m talking about the 60% of people who have no interest, and would prefer to spend their time watching the Kardashians. I’m talking about the people who ran out and voted for Obama without asking the question “How will you close Gitmo” and many other serious questions. Unfortunately, it will have the same effect on us, as it does them. There’s nothing we can do about that.
@Tom:
I know. My wife asks “Who wants to live in a country that voted for Obama twice?” The answer is illegal aliens and Muslims undertaking Hijrah.
I’d add “Who wants to live in a country where a GOP majority gives Obama everything he wants?”. It wouldn’t surprise me if they let Obama nominate Loretta Lynch for SCOTUS and vote her in.
@neo-neocon:
What huge differences between then and now? Today, Illegals comprise 3% of the population and 35% of the prison population. Today, 60% of illegals receive generous welfare benefits. Today, illegal college students get in-state tuition at tax-payer funded colleges. Today, illegals smuggle $10/hit high quality heroin across the border, creating a devastating addiction epidemic. Back in Eisenhower’s day, the illegals were mostly farm hands in the South West who just wanted work.
We actually have more ways to track illegals than ever before. 60% receive welfare. Check the rolls against social security numbers and you’ll be off to a flying start.
Your anti-Trump arguments always revolve around his record before he became a politician and the fact you believe he is an incredibly nasty person. I think you are somewhat one-sided in the records you pick. You ignore his record as GOP donor. He gave a lot of money to GOP committees, rather than individuals, so he was replenishing party coffers.
Mine revolve around his stated position since he announced, and his consistency since then, despite intense criticism from all quarters.
@neo-neocon:
I believe in the rule of law and the power of incentives.
Mark Steyn has an interesting story about illegals.
Presently, all the incentives encourage illegals to enter the US. Why not? They get Medicaid, food stamps, schooling for their children, jobs and, in too many cases, the opportunity to pursue a life of crime. If they have anchor babies, even better; their welfare payments can’t be turned off. Cruz and Trump agree on anchor babies, BTW.
The Mexican government receives more revenue from
Mexicans resident in the US (legal and illegal) than it does from oil. Mexico is exporting its poverty and crime to the US. It’s a deliberate policy on its part and it has huge incentives to continue pushing its people across the border. If the flow isn’t halted, we won’t have a country anymore.
The drug cartels are also a massive problem that the Mexican government has struggled with. Needless to say, the flood of drugs across the border has only increased.
Yes, deporting illegals is a bigger problem than it was back it the 1950’s. It is also more urgent.
There are enough laws in place to give most of the recent arrivals a path to citizenship.It is called “Go Home!”. Cut off tax-payer funded welfare, and 60% of illegals will be given an incentive to go home. Shutdown sanctuary cities and more of the criminals and welfare cheats would be caught and deported. Threaten to block the remittances and the Mexican government will have incentives to close the border and accept back its own citizens. Mexico currently has a huge trade surplus with the US. That is a huge source of leverage.
A case can be made for illegals who have settled down, gotten jobs, committed no more crimes and taken no welfare, to get legal status.
The key is to remove the incentives to come and stay. It can be done. A majority would like it done. In a generation, that majority will have been overtaken. But, our politicians have ignored the will of the people ever since Reagan foolishly granted amnesty.
Either we reverse illegal immigration or it’s Adios America.
If Trump supporters are convinced that he is genuine in his now stated beliefs, and further that he has only the best interests of America at heart, then they MUST also know that he cannot fulfill that vision and win the nomination let alone the general election without the 2/3 of the Republican Party electorate currently aligned against him. Why would he consistently alienate them if he truly intends to go on to win? Why wouldn’t he be trying his best to bring them around so that his vision of restoring American greatness gets a national hearing?
The only answer and one that his followers refuse to consider, is that he has no intention of compromising with the right because his purpose is to disrupt and destroy it. This position is openly stated on many websites as reason to support his candidacy. One of those websites is ConservativeTreeHouse, but there are several others with the same goal. Trumps credentials with these people is the fact that he is challenging not just the Republican Party establishment, but also conservatism itself through his populist ideas of trade protectionism and his living example of crony capitalism.
He blackmailed the Republican Party to gain access to the primary process at the start by threatening a 3rd party run. Now he openly attacks its nominal leader, the last sitting Republican president, as a lying warmonger directly responsible for 4,000 plus dead and thousands more wounded American heroes. Please tell me you avid Trump supporters what he would be doing differently if he were a Michael Moore Democrat?
Go down the list:
He’s for universal health care – read single-payer socialized medicine – just like the one Moore glorified in Sicko. You guys do remember that, the movie where Moore goes to the Caribbean prison otherwise known as Cuba to exalt its leader and his health care system at the expense of ours?
He’s for tariffs used as weapons such as Smoot-Hawley during the 1930’s. That worked out real well didn’t it, ushering in a trade war and real war leading to not just thousands but millions killed?
He’s for rounding up maybe 12,000,000 people at the point of a gun, yes a gun, every much as lethal as the assault rifles pointed at Elian Gonzalez. Here, have a look at what awaits, unless you are afraid to see what your populist leader really intends:
http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/International/AP_elian_gonzales_raid_01_jef_150421_4x3_992.jpg
He’s for using our military as little more than a mercenary force to be paid by the rulers of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. He’s stated that if we defend them, then they will pay for it. If that isn’t mercenary I don’t know what is.
His embrace of Vladimir Putin and his susceptibility to that thug’s flattery indicates an admiration for, and belief in an authoritarian strongman as “his kind of guy.” In support of that mindset Trump finds the rule of law as little more than a convention to be used to get his way. He’s a man looking for a short cut, without morality, restraint, or the basic decency of civil society.
So in summary, given how maybe 2/3 of the Republican Party see Donald Trump, and given how he doesn’t give a damn about it, what makes any of you Trump supporters believe for a minute that he either wants or expects it? And if he doesn’t desire that support what is he in the race for? Huh?
@neo-neocon:
Well, duh, now he doesn’t have to suck up to Democrats in his hometown anymore. Now he can say what he thinks. Of course, he could be just another shyster with a really nasty streak. I believe that is your kindest view of Trump. I don’t discount the possibility that you are right.
PatD:
I hadn’t noticed anyone arguing that dealing with illegal immigration and illegal immigrants (as well as legal immigration, I might add) isn’t exceptionally important, and that the first needs to be stopped and the second limited and the criteria changed.
But Trump’s Operation Wetback 2.0 is what’s under discussion, and it’s unrealistic. Nor does he have a CLUE how to go about it. It’s just a large fish he throws at the populist masses.
@The Other Chuck:
Oh, dear, if I respond to all your misinformation in detail neo-neocon will have to block me forever.
So, here’s a polite suggestion. Read Trump’s actual positions as outlined on his web-site and in his book “Crippled America” and then repost citing his actual positions.
You shouldn’t have to misstate anybody’s actual positions to make your point.
@neo-neocon:
Trump’s Operation Wetback Mark 2.0 isn’t much more than rigorously enforcing existing law and, as Cruz agrees, ending birthright citizenship. Plus the wall that Cruz and Rubio are now talking about.
PatD, I know exactly what Trump’s positions are. I know for instance that he disclaims the 12 million deportation by saying that once out they can come back, that he is now for merely reforming Obamacare but that under his plan everyone will be covered which is nothing but a horse with another name, that he disclaims tariffs as merely a threat, etc., etc…
I also know that he commissioned the positions he now advocates on his website just as he had his book ghost written.
What I know for a fact and what you refuse to answer is that he has no intention of making nice with the 2/3 of the Republican electorate who are repulsed by him. He relishes it. That you have chosen to be a cleaned-up mouthpiece for the piece of excrement tells me all I need to know about you, by the way. Don’t like the blunt talk PatD? You like Trump, so here it is right back in your face a la The Donald.
David Horowitz’s view of Trump; “ELECTION FOG
Dispelling a key myth of the primary season.”
I would include Hillary as a closet “radical reactionary who is at war with America’s political and economic system” and, given his consistent support for Obama, Biden as a “useful idiot” who can be manipulated into backing the same agenda.
If Trump is elected, he may well betray conservatives but any of the dems will continue Obama’s agenda. That is why, I will vote for whomever is the republican nominee. But any Republican Pres. will have a well neigh impossible job in righting our ship of state. The rot is too deep.
PatD:
“Rigorously enforcing existing law”—ah, how simple! No problem! Did you even see my detailed discussion of the logistical problems Trump would face, the tremendous differences between what Eisenhower did and what Trump would have to do, and the fact that he hasn’t said a thing about how he actually would do it, and has no relevant experience whatsoever with anything even remotely resembling such a program?
Trump’s immigration proposals differ from the others, and got him the lion’s share of attention, because he said he would deport all the illegals. Cruz and most of the others want to build a wall, and unless Trump is going to self-finance it, there’s no reason to believe he would not run into the same problems anyone else has. As for birthright citizenship, is he just going to declare it invalid by executive order? Don’t you think Ted Cruz knows a lot more about the ways to try to do that legally (it would take a SCOTUS ruling or an amendment)?
Do you understand anything about the Constitution or the way these things work?
I already proved to you that Cruz was talking about a wall in 2011, and showed a video to prove it, plus several newspaper articles that reported on his efforts. And yet you repeat, over and over, this garbage “Plus the wall that Cruz and Rubio are now talking about.”
You are now officially using the comments section here to spam Trump disinformation. At first I tolerated it, because I figured you just didn’t know the facts. If you keep repeating information you know is untrue, I will have no choice but to ban you.
Which I really would prefer not to do.
I will be so glad when primary season is over.
Frank Rich’s take on Trump is an entertaining read for fans and foes. It does contain some useful insights.
Neo, I must apologize for my last remark made in the heat of frustration. I can spot the disingenuous and can’t stand it.
Geoffrey Britain:
In general I admire Horowitz, but I do not agree with him here. I think that Horowitz, as a changer from the ranks of the far left, is most afraid of the dangers on the left and is failing to see what Trump’s all about.
But just as Horowitz misunderstood (and idealized) the left when he was a member of it, he is misunderstanding and idealizing Trump now. He is using what’s called “special pleading,” as explained here:
So, Horowitz writes:
Let’s take that line by line.
“Trump may be sloppy with the facts, careless in his formulations and undisciplined in his personal attacks, but he is not — as some intellectuals on the right seem to think — out of his mind.” In the first part of that sentence, Horowitz is positing “Trump is a fool, not a knave.” But there’s no reason to say that; Trump is a very smart man, actually, and I think his “sloppiness” and “carelessness” is strategic and purposeful, to pull the wool over his supporters’ eyes. For example, he’s threatening again to sue Cruz over the birther thing, but I wrote a long article explaining why it is highly unlikely that Trump has standing, and I am almost sure he knows that because he’s got excellent lawyers.
At any rate, if he’s that much of a fool, why would we trust him to accomplish what Horowitz thinks he can?
The second part of that sentence contrast Trump’s supposed sloppiness (“fool”) not with “knave” (“has bad intentions, or is purposely lying”), but with “insane.” But very few of Trump’s critics have called him insane, at least not the ones I’ve read. I certainly never have. So it’s a false contrast.
Next, Horowitz writes, “Nor will he, if elected president, deport 11 or 20 million illegals, or bar Muslims from entering the United States.” But those are the very foundations of Trump’s platform, two of the main reasons his supporters support him. And why is it that Trump won’t do that, and how does Horowitz know he won’t? Is it because Trump is lying through his teeth and doesn’t even mean to do it, making a false promise? Is it because he’s incompetent and won’t be able to do it, because he’s a “fool”? Is it because it’s not possible, without the help of Congress? Don’t we need more than Horowitz’s assurance that Trump won’t? Is Trump a manipulative liar, incapable, or unaware of what’s involved? Doesn’t it matter?
Then Horowitz says, “But he will build the wall and secure our borders, and he will develop a vetting system for Muslims from the terrorist Middle East where today there is none.” Once again, how do you know, Mr. Horowitz? Talk about special pleading! Trump won’t do the these things, but he will do those things. Why these and not those? Does he suddenly become competent about those? Or is he finally telling the truth, whereas he was lying before? Does Horowitz have him hooked up to a lie detector test, so he can tell? And aren’t these things that Horowitz says Trump will do things that almost all the GOP candidates have said they will do?
I suppose Horowitz is saying that, in contrast, Sanders won’t do those things. But no one said that Trump is exactly like Sanders or has the same policies, or vice versa. On reading Horowitz’s full article, I see that he also attributes Trump’s views on George Bush and Iraq to ignorance rather than malice against the US. Well, I agree it’s not malice against the US; I’ve never accused Trump of that. But it’s certainly malice against the Bushes, malice against all Trump’s opponents, malice against the truth—or profound ignorance and profound stupidity, or maybe all of them.
Most people are not going: “Trump or Sanders, who should I vote for?” It seems that’s the only group that Horowitz’s column would be addressing. But I have no idea why he thinks this is necessary.
The Other Chuck:
See the last two paragraphs of this comment of mine.
I don’t really think your comment was over the top, under the circumstances. I do appreciate your apology, though.
I stopped trying to have a discussion with PatD after the caucus. I read his ;
@neo-neocon:
You say:
Cruz on Birthright Citizenship:
Trump on Birthright Citizenship:
I see little daylight between the two. Trump has said it only needs congress to act, and he has sought legal opinion. Cruz adds that it might need a constitutional amendment, which is much more difficult.
I do take the care to read Trump’s actual written positions before posting. Some people haven’t actually bothered.
Oops…
I read or do not read his comments based upon the same criteria as artfldgr… long comments are a waste of time, more succinct comments may/may not have some value. IMO PatD has become a sycophant sock pocket lacking originality while artfldgr yields an occasional pearl.
Me, I am a flyover farm boy grown old. I know bull, pig, chicken shit from several miles away based on atmospheric parts per billion.
Oops, not pocket, but puppet. Time to go to bed.
@Parker:
A politician was seated next to a 10-year-old girl on an airplane. Being bored, he turned to the girl and said, “Let’s talk. I’ve heard that flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger.”
The girl, who was reading a book, closed it slowly and said to the guy, “What would you like to talk about?”
Oh, I don’t know,” said the guy. “How about nuclear power?”
“OK,” she said. “That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow and a deer all eat the same stuff… grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is?”
The guy thought about it and said, “Hmmm, I have no idea.”
To which the girl replied, “Do you really feel qualified to discuss nuclear power when you don’t know shit?”
PatD:
I wasn’t talking about what Trump said he would do. I was talking about what he’s able to do. It’s easy to find what Trump says; I’m not arguing about that.
You wrote that Trump’s program is to “end birthright citizenship.” But it’s in the Constitution. Any act of Congress not only would not pass—despite what Trump wants—but would probably be challenged in court if it were, and the challenge has a high likelihood of success.
It is highly probable that only an amendment could do it, and Trump has no special ability to accomplish that—it’s not an executive power. So my sarcastic point was that the only way Trump could actually do it in a way that would be different from Cruz or anyone else would be to try to use some sort of executive power a la Obama. Otherwise, who cares what he says he will do? And my other point was that it’s Cruz who knows a lot about the law on this, and the way to do it is almost certainly an amendment.
I also have written a lengthy post on the subject of ending birthright citizenship and the law behind it. I’m well aware of the topic, and what you can do and cannot do, and I happen to be in favor of ending birthright citizenship.
Second wind after a call from a long time friend in Wyoming..
So Pat D what was the color of the hair of the girl next to you on the flight to trumptopia? 🙂
I do know shit. Shoveled it, spread it, tilled it into the soil from an early age. You do not want to get into the various olfactory levels of manure with me. Compared to you I am a connoisseur. 🙂
Seems things have taken a nasty turn from Monte Python to The Masque of the Red Death.
neo,
Horowitz may be misunderstanding Trump but I see no evidence of idealization. Perhaps minimizing is more accurate? But in any case, rather than minimizing, I suspect that Horowitz simply sees the alternative explanation of Trump’s actions he offers, as more likely, a view confirmed by his intuitive reading of the man. Horowitz and myself are NOT saying we ‘know’ or even believe, we are saying Trump motivations may not be as ‘monomaniacal’ as you insist. You have painted Trump as likely to turn into a dictator and we don’t read the man that way.
I agree, Trump’s “sloppiness” and “carelessness” is strategic and purposeful. As is the harshness of his attacks. But I do not believe that Trump is doing that to ‘pull the wool’ over his supporters eyes.
I suspect that Trump may, in regard to deporting 11 or 20 million illegals and, calling for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States, be speaking generally, keeping it simple, to communicate his seriousness on those issues. Privately knowing that what he can achieve will fall short, yet because he’s serious (admittedly an assumption), unlike say Ryan, Trump knows that by demanding it all, he can end up ‘settling’ for the maximum achievable.
As for what he can do, as President, Trump can certainly enforce the current immigration laws. He can go after employers. Using the bully pulpit, by repeatedly pointing out that the federal benefits for illegals exceed those for our veterans… he can pressure Congress to end the incentives for illegals.
As President, Trump can issue executive orders to create onerous vetting procedures, that in effect will greatly slow Muslim migration into America, while again pressuring Congress to act on the threat.
Of course a President Cruz can do the same but we are discussing what Trump can actually do on those issues.
Personally, I think you’re allowing your disgust for Trump’s character and actions to negatively color your perceptions. I base that assessment upon the high degree of vitriol that you direct toward Trump in your arguments. Vitriol that IMO substantively exceeds the vitriol you have previously directed at Obama. Something that frankly, I thought impossible 😉 There’s an inherent emotionalism in your writing about Trump, at a level that far exceeds your prior, consistently objective assessments of Obama.
I am not saying that you are wrong about Trump, as that no one can know. I am saying that you may be wrong about Trump and that your fears of what he might do if elected are just that, fears of what he might do.
The reason in Trump’s case, why past is not necessarily prologue to the future is that bombastism is a mask, a ploy to gain maximum leverage in social situations. Trump as you point out is far too smart to think that he can have everything he wants or force people to do what they just don’t want to do but through intimidation and projecting confidence, he can often leverage people into giving him more than they would otherwise. That ‘bullying’ is unethical but not monomaniacal.
IMO, Trump not being a conservative is sufficient grounds for preferring Cruz or even Rubio but not grounds for panicking at the very idea of a Pres. Trump. And, in both my and Horowitz’s view, even a bullying Trump is preferable to a Marxist pretending to be a ‘progressive’.
Geoffrey Britain:
The underestimation is Horowitz saying “fool” rather than “knave.” At the same time, Horowitz overestimates Trump’s ability to do things he’s promised in the political sense.
Horowitz uses absolute language—Trump won’t do these things, Trump will do these things. But Horowitz never explains why. He doesn’t couch it as opinion, he couches it as fact, but it’s only fact because Horowitz says so.
It’s probably the strangest, most illogical article I’ve ever read of Horowitz’s.
As for what I’ve written about Trump, I don’t know how likely it is that Trump will go tyrannical. But I know that his entire previous personality and actions lead me to believe he will try his level best, and anyone who doesn’t see that is ignoring almost everything the man has ever said, done, and is.
I don’t even see this as something to argue about. It is right there in his record, including the threats he’s made during this campaign (see this, for example). It’s his natural reaction to anything he doesn’t like. I can’t imagine why so many people don’t see it.
And (as I think I’ve said before), my reaction to Trump is after learning about his history. I’m old enough to have been exposed to Trump for many years. I never watched his shows, but I certainly am familiar with his persona, and I can tell you (and have said before) that I had virtually no emotional reaction to him at all. Rich guy, big mouth, celebrity, lots of wives, so what? Why would I care? So I had no disgust about him, or much of anything else.
My disgust is at the electorate and his defenders who don’t see who he has been, the way he has conducted himself, and in particular who he has been during this campaign season. He has revealed himself as one of the most abominable human beings I’ve ever seen in public political life, and that’s saying a lot. The reason I have more anger at him than at Obama is not really about the two men and a comparison, it is all about how people on the right have gone for Trump. I don’t think I ever idealized the right, but apparently I did think that to a certain extent voters on the right had more principles and brains than that. Apparently not. My anger at Trump is for being just the man to exploit that stupidity.
I will confine myself to immigration because I have no desire to get into the merits of Trump generally. First, 60% of illegal immigrants are not on welfare. PatD, where did you get those statistics? Most illegals are working, either “black” – paid in cash with no trace – or “grey” — in legitimate jobs with fake Social Security numbers. Without those “grey” immigrants, Social Security would go negative cash flow almost immediately.
Remember that any immigration bill will have to have 60 votes in the Senate to pass. Under either Cruz or Rubio (or Trump, for that matter), it will have certain features:
1. Secure the border.
2. Identify everyone in the US. (To you libertarians out there, yes, that means everyone will have to carry “papers”)
3. Immediately deport all non-immigration felons and gang-bangers.
4. Impose a 15% withholding tax on all remittances to foreign countries.
5. Expand and toughen E-Verify.
6. Require filing and payment of back taxes, but with credit for “grey” Social Security payments and income tax withheld.
Now, what about the other “optional” features?
6. Reinstitute the bracero program, with a maximum annual stay on the US — almost certainly, as the farmers will insist on it.
7. Limit H1-B visas to companies who can prove they have tried to hire Americans — tough to say whether it will pass — the tech companies won’t want it, plus we’ll need Indian doctors to replace all the American doctors who quit because of Obamacare.
8. Repeal anchor baby citizenship for children of illegals — that one will never get 60 votes, and the Supremes would probably rule it unconstitutional, anyway. I might throw that in as a give-up, though.
9. Now for the hard part — what about the rest of the illegals? To get a bill passed, it will have to have some sop to the Dems. I would suggest the following: grant a five-year, non-renewable visa. (This should satisfy the Dream Act whiners.) If someone applies for a green card (this green card would not make one eligible for citizenship) or the bracero program within the first two years, they can join the line (at the end, no cuts!) without returning to their home country. If not, at the end of their five years, out they go.
Call that amnesty if you will, just remember, a bill must have 60 votes in the Senate to pass. If anyone can come up with a better plan, I’d love to see it.