I thought RF’s article about Donald Trump raised a good many points of concern about The Donald. I had expressed some of my own fears about a putative Trump Administration earlier. I worry that with no ideological moorings, his desire to “make deals” and “get things done” could boomerang on us. I am also concerned about his comments on civil liberties such as the First Amendment. Informed in part by those concerns, as well as my own belief that Ted Cruz is the strongest Second Amendment advocate we could hope for, I have donated money to the Cruz campaign. When the primary for Pennsylvania rolls around next month, I will vote for ol’ Rafael, too. There. Full disclosure completed . . .
I am nothing if not a realist, however, and have always preferred harsh truth over pleasing lies. (Try coming of age as a half-Chicano with a dark-skinned mother, and a Mexican illegal immigrant grandmother, in a poor white community in rural Western Pennsylvania after the steel industry collapse, and see if you can keep your starry-eyed idealism!) I can see the handwriting on the wall quite clearly. Every instinct in my political bones tells me that the GOP nomination is going to Trump.
All I had to do was watch the news channels devote their time to covering The Donald’s victory speech/informercial for Trump Steak and the Trump Winery in lieu of Hillary’s celebration of her first-place win in Mississippi and her Rubio-style second-place ‘win’ in Michigan. I also knew it when I spoke with people outside the RKBA community last year who were relatively undecided. When asked about Cruz, I would hear them say things like: “Why does he look so weird?” Or: “Man, that guy gives me the creeps.” Not promising, to say the least.
Elections aren’t held in a vacuum. You have to make a choice between at least two candidates who usually represent a mixed bag of compromises and contradictions within themselves. Unless you’re running for office personally, no candidate’s views will ever match your own. Despite Bernie’s come-from-behind win in the Wolverine State last night, he’s still a long-shot to defeat Hillary, and despite his finding a modicum of a spine on guns in the last debate, he isn’t exactly someone who could be counted on in the breach on the Second Amendment either.
No, the wife of former President Bill Clinton is still likely to be the Democrat nominee because there are still enough dyed-in-the-wool Yellow Dog Democrats for whom, emotionally, it’s still first light on Tuesday, November 7, 2000, and they still have a chance to beat George W. Bush, to install Al Gore, and continue the good times of the 1990s. It’s quite farcical at this point, but clearly the dream lives on, because otherwise some other Democrat would have stepped up: Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, even Joe Freakin’ Biden.
Let me be clear on this point: a Hillary presidency would be an unmitigated disaster for those of us who care about the right to keep and bear arms.
Hillary was the one who forced down the nation’s throat the ineffective and useless ban on certain small-bore rifles that looked ‘evil’, and the concomitant (and equally useless) ban on certain boxes made of inert metal and plastic. (We only got rid of that ridiculous law because our advocates managed to put in a 10-year sunset provision and because we elected good people who were in Congress when the law expired. At the time, President George W. Bush said he would’ve been happy to sign a renewal. Yeah, thanks for nothing.)
Hillary has been an advocate against us for a generation in every forum.
You know the funny thing about President Obama? He wasn’t our friend, either…but apart from some occasional pro forma remarks (and the famous “bitter clingers” comment,) he didn’t really campaign on gun control in either 2008 or 2012. Hillary? She’s all in on civilian disarmament. Hell, she’s attacking Sanders — the honest-to-god Marxist — from the left on the issue.
If Hillary manages to gain the presidency, it will be rightly seen as a huge defeat for us. Everyone knows where she stands, the things she’s done to hurt us, and the things she would do in a heartbeat if given a bit of space.
I don’t want Hillary in the White House.
I don’t want Hillary appointing justices to the Supreme Court.
I don’t want Hillary appointing judges to the Appellate and District Courts.
I don’t want Hillary appointing people to run the unelected apparatchiks who run the bloated federal regulatory apparatus.
I don’t want Hillary signing executive orders on guns.
I don’t want Hillary setting policy priorities for the FBI or the BATFE on guns.
Last but not least, I don’t want Bloomberg or his minions to take heart and be encouraged by a Hillary administration. I don’t want people to point to a Hillary election and say to themselves, “Hey, maybe the pro-gun vote isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.” Perceptions have a funny way of translating into reality in politics.
Yes, there’s a huge (yuge?) risk in voting for Trump. He is talking a good game on guns, but he’s talking a good game on lots of issues, and anyone taking Trump propaganda to the bank needs to have their head examined. (Or, for that matter, just refer to chapter 4 of The Art of the Deal, in which he basically talks about a snow job to unload a property in Cincinnati on a young naive fellow representing a REIT.)
The Donald has said things that are very concerning. The gun ban for people on the terrorist watch list issue for one. His remarks on the First Amendment for another.
Of course, the same caution needs to be exercised with any politican, and doubly so for those reaching for the brass ring of the presidency. They’re all in it to some extent for the own ego, their own desire for power — even if that desire is gratified by doing things they honestly think will help people. The civil liberties candidate, Rand Paul, flamed out in January. This is not the libertarian moment we were hoping for.
Anyway, I know what Hillary will do. I don’t know what Trump will do. He says he’s with us. It’s a risk. But, on balance, I think I’d be willing to take that risk coupled with a Congress that distrusts him (regardless of which party controls it,) a news media that will be looking to expose any flaw, and a desire by the electorate to try to hold him to his words, however slippery they may be.
If I needed one more sign, it came from the decision of anti-gun, anti-civil liberties plutocrat Michael Bloomberg not to make a third party run this year. He says he was doing it to avoid handing the election to Trump(!) or Cruz(!!) What was left unsaid was his desire to make sure that the election was won by someone else. Who do you think that might be? And why do you think Mayor Mike — who thinks his work on banning guns has earned him a place in heaven — wants her to win?
Let me be clear about something else: this is not an endorsement for Trump. I speak only for the case where Hillary Clinton is the Democrat nominee; if anyone else is nominated, all bets are off. I also don’t presume to tell you what to do; you have access to the same information I have, and can make your own choices. To the extent one vote really matters (spoiler alert: it probably doesn’t,) I’ll cast my primary vote for Cruz next month, because he is a Second Amendment stalwart, and it pleases me to vote for Second Amendment stalwarts.
But I’m not going to pretend that Trump is some sort of moral outlier compared with the current crop of candidates — or, for that matter, that he’s somehow worse than most of the people who have held the office during my lifetime, from Richard M. Nixon on down. He’s an outlier in terms of his willingness to use earthy language on the stump, and his ability to overpower the news cycle, not from any excessive willingness to bribe the people, gull the people, and fool the people above and beyond the others. Or, as far as I can tell, his willingness to restrict civil liberties when it’s convenient for him politically.
If Trump is elected, we will need to watch him like a hawk. But we’re going to need to do that with any president — nay, every politician — no matter who is elected. To borrow from George Bernard Shaw: we know what they are; we’re now just haggling over price.
The price of a Hillary presidency, of a Clinton restoration, is too high for me. I won’t sit on my hands in this election if she’s nominated. I’m done with family legacy candidates from America’s bipartisan political aristocracy, especially when they have made it clear through their words and deeds they are the enemy of our civil liberties. So when it comes right down to it: Trump over Hillary. There, I said it.
If it turns out I’m wrong and a Trump presidency is somehow worse than Hillary would have been, you can print this out, hunt me down, and cram it in my throat. I will have deserved it.
If it’s trump or the beast then trump it is. That doesn’t mean that I like trump. But the beast is just unthinkable.
“Ted Cruz is the strongest Second Amendment advocate we could hope for […]
I can see the handwriting on the wall quite clearly. Every instinct in my political bones tells me that the GOP nomination is going to Trump”
Which makes one wonder… deals have no doubt already been made, and Trump was the way for the GOP to be certain that Cruz would not be the candidate.
Tinfoil hat securely in place, one does indeed wonder.
That is an interesting thought.
It’s no secret at this point that the GOP machinery is no friend to individual liberty any more than than the DNC is. But I confess that on the 2A specifically, I had not quite sussed out that they (the GOP higher higher insiders) might actively be against us.
Interesting thought indeed.
DNC/RNC plan good cop/bad cop on us, and behind doors wherein which peasants may not go, they speak of their winnings and future plans as a single organization.
If people don’t believe this, all one needs to do is look at what they get done. Everything that they want. Cruz might be a fly in that ointment, thus we have Trump step in to solve that little problem.
Can I prove this? Of course not. Except for the pudding, the proof is in the pudding.
And the Trump voters are saying mmmm….pudding….
This to mr. 308 , yeh buddy, good cop bad cop, yup yup. Vote for your choice of snake to bite you, taipan or rattlesnake. Were dead both ways
“THC says:
March 9, 2016 at 21:12”
If the GOP didn’t want Obamacare there are many things they could have done to stop it, block it, prevent funding and the like. Seems like they want it.
Hell, if they wanted to beat Obama last time, they could have done so easily, and they did not.
And there are endless examples like this.
That’s what I am saying, look at what they do not what they say.
I am in absolute agreement on this point . Everything shows this to be the case and I think it is obvious to any observer , especially when you factor in the comments of Jimmy Carter , Bob Dole , Mitch McConnell , John McCain , Harry Reid , Nancy Pelosi and a slew of other established and entrenched progressives in Washington , saying they would prefer Trump over Cruz , before they realized that those sort of comments helped grow Cruz’s support and now you see all the media and progressives saying how important it is to stop the Trump train which only solidifies and grows his numbers .
I have no doubts that the established progressives are directly behind Rubio and gov. K. staying in the race and it should be obvious that their supporters would disproportionately go to Cruz .
The phone call would go something like this , ” Marco , If you don’t stay in this race your political future will be destroyed and if you do we’ll see to it you get all our support in the future .”
The game is on , Ted is the real anti-establishment candidate and it is Ted who scares the pants off the girls and dresses of the guys in the progressive cabal .
I’ve been saying this contest looks like a choice between “Oh, SHIT!” and “Hell, NO!!!” Absent Cruz managing to knock Trump off (Rubio, if you REALLY want Trump stopped, get the hell out of Cruz’s way!) that’s what it’s gonna be.
I’ll have to vote for “Oh, SHIT!” if those are my two choices… and (in case anyone is wondering), Trump is “Oh, SHIT!” and either Hillary or Bernie is “Hell, NO!!!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pji_IX-UacM
I never would have thought I could come to any point in time when I believed any GOP candidate would be worse that Hillary who I would normally put below Sanders on my wish list , BUT Trump is literally on the bottom for me . I believe ABSOLUTELY nothing he says and I would put him in the fu_king hell no spot .
Bernie would support a lot of anti 2nd A legislation , Hillary will try an all out ban and Trump may march us to the boxcars for owning guns , if it helps him ‘ grow his name ‘ . I will always prefer to know my enemy as opposed to always try and guess their location .
To me Trump really is A. H. , 1931 Germany .
“…Trump may march us to the boxcars for owning guns , if it helps him ‘ grow his name ‘ . I will always prefer to know my enemy as opposed to always try and guess their location .
To me Trump really is A. H. , 1931 Germany .”
I see zero indication that he would confiscate firearms or march citizens into boxcars. I can see how some people might believe he would do something analogous with illegal aliens in the process of enforcing immigration law. But it’s pretty unrealistic to think he’ll do even that. He’s no Hitler. More along the lines of an Obama (in the sense that he’ll exceed his legal authority as often as he thinks he can). Regarding guns, I’m sure he’d by happy to sign some Federal gun control legislation if it helps him get something he wants in return. So, plenty of reason to oppose Trump without going Godwin.
To the point , I’ll bet Gypsy’s , Jews , communist , mental deficient , lame and deformed Germans were making your same argument 1931 .
I hope that statement don’t have you turning in your grave ‘ old man .
God bless .
I will vote my ABC’s in November.
Anyone
But
Clinton
Still hoping Cruz pulls it off….
If it turns out I’m wrong and a Trump presidency is somehow worse than Hillary would have been, you can print this out, hunt me down, and cram it in my throat. I will have deserved it.
I don’t think you have much to worry about. Nobody could be as bad or as dangerous to all civil rights as Hillarious Rodham Clinton.
She’s made gun control her signature issue. If she wins, she will be empowered to take a meat cleaver to 2A. And she’s nasty enough to take a meat cleaver to all of us. In this effort, she will be aided by a packed SCOTUS full of modern social justice warriors.
As soon as it’s 5-4 for the Left she will find a way to get a case with standing up there that effective outlaws possession of most handguns and a great deal of long guns. Unlike Heller this decision will be considered final. One state will kick it off with an outright ban to force a case. No longer is this considered a longshot.
If that happens, things could get ugly, very quickly. And if they don’t get ugly very quickly, they will be even uglier further down the road. We all need to hope that doesn’t happen.
Hillary = guaranteed disaster
Trump = probably a disaster
By the math he is a better gamble than another Clinton. The sad state of our political current structure.
Nice formula. Explains in current terms what I have posted before: one party wants to rule, the other party wants to party. Quick destruction of the republic, or slow destruction; destination is the same.
True enough, but at least with the slower path, there is time and potential to check the slide. It’s like a DGU…distance=time, and time means better odds of survival.
If not for the last 15yrs, I might be optimistic that time equals potential for staving off the inevitable. All we have seen from the Republican cabal is, “We aren’t as bad as them”. So far, time has not been on our side.
That is most certainly and unequivocally a fair point.
The R’s have had many opportunities to “do the right thing.” Yet the only consistent thing they’ve done is … not that.
Here in NC, the R’s hold the House, the Senate and the Governor’s office for the first time over 100 years. Yet they have failed to pass “Constitutional Carry” and get rid of the (utterly pointless) pistol purchase permit.
I hold out hope, though. At least some of them are putting these kinds of bills up. I find my “hope” where I can.
Well stated. I don’t think Rubio will exit in time to allow Cruz to collect enough delegates to defeat Trump, and that is what it would take. A brokered convention that did not pick Trump or Cruz would mean that even a wounded Hillery would be elected, and that would be the complete and unmitigated disaster that you envision.
Agreed. A brokered convention would likely be a disaster. Especially after the meeting yesterday of uber wealthy in Georgia working on how to stop trump.
Here’s to hoping Mr. Cruz or Mr. Trump win enough delegates to stop that.
It looks like Cruz will steal away enough delegates to deny Trump the hassle-free nomination. (IE, below the *magic* number).
There have been rumblings that the RNC *may consider* Cruz to be a viable alternative to Trump. I will outline how that may bite us.
What we MUST hope for at this point is for the HildaBeast to be the DNC nominee.
That will kill all enthusiasm for the Left (meaning, Millennials For Bernie) to stay the hell home on election day.
My gut feeling is we are more vulnerable to lose this election with Cruz running. There are apparently millions of Blue-Dog Democrats who have been showing up for the primaries and voting Trump. Trump has managed to *massively* increase the size of the RNC tent, much to their chagrin. A problem one would *think* they would like to have!
With Cruz rather than Trump the candidate, they may well stay home like Bernie’s Millennials will stay home rather than vote the HildaBeast.
My .02 and worth less than half that amount…
EDIT – I just made a terrible realization.
If the HildaBeast chooses Bernie as a rubbing mate, that will attract the Millennials to vote Clinton – Sanders.
That very well could sink us…
“There are apparently millions of Blue-Dog Democrats who have been showing up for the primaries and voting Trump. “
You are making an unsupported assumption that those same Blue-Dog Democrats will vote Trump over Hillary in the General Election.
Have you considered the possibility that they are voting Trump to sandbag the Republican primary process?
Very nearly all polls show Trump not beating Clinton in the General Election. Maybe those polls have statistically predictive power and maybe they don’t, but I don’t think we should ignore the possibility.
Did anyone notice a couple of GOP debates ago Trump was ask a couple of questions about issues where he has reversed course and he shrugged his shoulders and said , ” I changed my mind “.
How about this ;
President Trump , what do you say to all your supporters who are angry with you over you nominating a progressive Supreme Court Judge ? ……I changed my mind .
President Trump , what do you say to all your supporters who are angry with you over your position on banning guns ? ………. I changed my mind .
I won’t go on because I rest my case .
Let’s not open the chicken coop door to the fox , if we can keep it inside the run .
Sadly, taking a risk with the unknown (Trump) vs the horrible known (Ovary Clinton) would probably be the only thing to hang my hat on in the general. It’s not a vote I look forward to having to make. Actually, I dread it because it shouldn’t come to this. Even if Trump wins the general, there will be no feeling of relief. Trump knows he has lot of people eating out of his hand and can poop on their heads at any time and get away with it. Under this scenario, I can easily see Trump nominating a Souter or Breyer like justice to the Supreme Court. He is a New York City elite after all. Cruz would find the next Scalia like justice.
Given this back drop, the states become paramount as the resistance to the overreaching feds regardless of whether it is headed by Ovary Clinton or Orange Julius Caeser.
Dear God I hope it’s not Donald Drumpf, but if it is I will enjoy referring to him as “Orange Julius Ceasar”
Small comfort indeed (make that microscopic), but thanks for that.
Brilliant!
My personal favorite is Trumpolini. I’ve even seen pictures of Trump and Mussolini with the same facial expression and arrogant head tilt. Plus, with Trumpolini the inevitable follow-on is “il douche”
Orange Julius Caesar?!?!?
Best. Name. Ever.
Can’t take credit for it. Jay Weber of Milwaukee radio was the first I heard to use it regarding Trump. He gets the credit.
” . . . I can easily see Trump nominating a Souter or Breyer like justice to the Supreme Court. He is a New York City elite after all. . .”
Actually, it appears that Trump isn’t NYC elite at all. If anything, he’s an apostate who is leading an unprecedented conservative insurrection. While I have admiration for Ted Cruz, I don’t think he has the sense of dramaturgy to win an election. While he’s running a good retail-style election, he can’t connect with an audience in the ways that Trump can.
Trump brings a level of showmanship to politics that we haven’t seen in a long time. It’s very effective even as it is, shall we say, a bit repellent to certain cosmopolites. It plays well in fly-over country and is attracting a crossover constituency of disaffected Democrat and Independent voters who’d never vote for Cruz or any other Republican. That’s a winning political marketing strategy that the Democrats running a Hillary campaign simply can’t match. I support Trump for all of the reasons that Johannes mentioned. I also share his concerns about Trump. The best way to think about The Donald is that he’s our hired gun. We don’t have to like him and he doesn’t have to like us. He’s here to do a job.
You said it better than I did above…
“is attracting a crossover constituency of disaffected Democrat and Independent voters who’d never vote for Cruz or any other Republican.”
The real question is whether or not those same votes will vote (R) for Trump in November.
A lot of the primaries so far have been “Open.” Anyone can vote for anyone they want in the primary. It does not lock them in to an (R) vote in the General Election.
Hanging our R vs D hat on Trump on the basis of people with no “brand loyalty” (so to speak) is a bet without evidence to justify it.
We’ve got to at least entertain the possibility that they favor Trump as the (R) candidate precisely because they think he’s beatable in November when they vote their true conscience.
You say “it appears”. Interesting hedging word. Put more directly, you don’t know, you feel. His entire adult life has been New York City centric. He isn’t like Bill DiBlasio, but he is New York City world view.
Also, in the next paragraph, you say he’s brought a level of showmanship never seen in recent history. I agree. This is partly why I don’t trust Orange Julius and have serious concerns. Fraudster are often showmen. They tell you what you want to hear, get you emotionally invested and thus impaired, then betray you taking what they really want. Trump knows he’s got a lot of people this way hence his “I could shoot someone on 5th Ave” comment.
He may likely be an apostate. The last 7 years may have cause Trump to separate more from the Democrat party he has historically supported.
As for a conservative revolution, clearly conservative doesn’t mean anything now. I use a more traditional definition of pushing to scale back government to the most basic essential functions with minimal taxes and government interference with individual lives. This isn’t Trump. He has offer unintentional glimpses when he said “I like the individual mandate” and “we’re going to get them all covered, the government will pay for it”. These were Trump’s comment regarding health care in interviews earlier on the campaign. Since then, he’s said he’s changed positions, but is it just pandering.
Lastly, we excoriate a Paul Ryan for the deal on the omnibus bill. There are good reasons to do so and many crap reasons people use to lash out in blind anger. Yet we are going to give a pass to a guy who says he makes deal and likes Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi. I thought we were tired of deals with Democrats. Furthermore, he’s never done a deal with anyone like them before. In business, both party have a general common interest. That won’t be the case in government. The Dems don’t care about anything except their cause. They won’t budge since government inertia favors them. They can make Trump desperate to secure a deal so he can claim a victory, the dems will get 70% or more of what they want.
Say what you want about Trump. He’s not conservative by my definition. He’s at best Rep Peter King crossed with Krusty the Clown and just a side of Obama narcissism.
“Trump knows he has lot of people eating out of his hand and can poop on their heads at any time and get away with it. Under this scenario, I can easily see Trump nominating a Souter or Breyer like justice to the Supreme Court.”
No. These are the people Trump wishes to nominate to the Supreme Court:
Judge William Pryor -upheld Georgia’s voter ID law, described Roe versus Wade as a “constitutional right to murder a child”
Judge Diane Skyes -also held a Voter ID law
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/19/3750758/what-if-donald-trump-wins-inside-his-plans-for-the-supreme-court/
What guarantee did we get from Trump that one of those two will be the nominee if he is President? Do we have a binding contract that says Trump will resign from office if he does something different? Or a contract that says any other nomination is invalid?
In a campaign, he can say anything with no intention of doing it. Finding a couple of names to throw out to assuage the masses is easy. I look at the man and his history. Trump isn’t an Alito/Thomas/Scalia type. He’s a O’Connor/Souter/Kennedy type.
The popularity of Donald Trump is a direct result of Americans lack of historical knowledge of the years leading up to the Nazi take over of the German government and the role of Hitler and his cronies in those events .
It is too late now for a refresher and I fear the world is repeating the coarse . I’ve seen that tree before Sam , we’re driving in circles .
“The popularity of Donald Trump is a direct result of Americans lack of historical knowledge of the years leading up to the Nazi take over . . .”
Mark, Mark, Mark . . . If you’re going to toss around the Hitler meme you should at least give some thought to the fact that Hitler’s and Nazism’s authoritarianism were both left-wing phenomena. The Nazi movement’s “National Socialism” was an offshoot of Italian Fascism which also was a form of socialism where the state controls the “means of production”:. Donald Trump is quite clearly a believer in and practitioner of market capitalism which is the antithesis of socialism.
Hitler and the Nazi movement were the “right wing” of the left wing. American “progressives” in the Democrat Party are, in fact, quite close to the kind of authoritarianism that characterizes both Italian Fascism and it close cousin German Nazism. If you are looking for a Hitler it is with the progressives that you’ll find a likely candidate. Capitalism and capitalists don’t fare well under dictatorships.
If you’re going to school us on political economics at least take the time to get your contexts right. What you just said is twaddle pretending to be fact.
To my point Garrison , Hitler was first and foremost a NATIONALIST and you really can not lecture me on this subject to make a point .
Trump is a snake oil salesman if there ever was one and I pray ( America ) does not prove me right . I believe the potential for this country to become very dark is terrifying .
Trump is stirring the Nationalist pot and the soup is beginning to thicken up nicely .
And I am suspicious of any anti-nationalist.
I am a nationalist. I am proud of my nation, my nation’s history, my nation’s founding principles, my nations aspiration to be a beacon for excellence, vision, and achievement. I am a nationalist. I do not want this country to be a cluster of tribes with ancient prejudices and vendettas. I do not want this country to be a patchwork of other cultures, with immigrants only interested in transplanting everything they left their home countries to avoid. I want this country to be a single people, Americans who value America and American traditional culture. I am a nationalist. I do not find anything written by or about the founders supporting the idea that their vision for America was to be in international hybrid, a country looking to other nations of the world for examples of behavior, government or culture. The founders intended to create a unique nation, not a hodgepodge of babble and conflict. I am a nationalist. The future of America comes first, then every other people on the planet can be considered. I am a nationalist. I do not believe in “the community of nations”, none of which aspire to what our founders established. I am a nationalist. I do not believe this nation can operate in an isolated vacuum, but America must not compromise principles for expediency. I am a nationalist. The citizens (not residents/occupants) of this nation come first. Once we have cared for our citizens, then we can look to assisting other nations care for theirs. I am a nationalist. Other countries can become like America, or continue to wallow in whatever state they find themselves. I object to being disadvantaged so that people who do not understand us, do not want us in their lives, do not want to allow us to continue to be the “beacon on the hill” can prosper. I am a nationalist. I do not believe in self-flagellation, self-condemnation, nor the idea that the evils in this world are solely due to the fact this nation exists. I am a nationalist. I do not believe in any idea that leads to the destruction (leveling?) of our greatness because “every country is exceptional” and America has no right to be more excellent, or better in any respect. I am a nationalist.
Re: Trump as snake-oil salesman. Can you name one politician, either current or historical, who was not a snake-oil salesman? I can’t. Seems to me the differences have largely been in the style and flavor of the shuck-and-jive. Trump is a hired gun. We don’t have to like him and he doesn’t have to like us.
I just don’t know if I can pinch my nose hard enough.
Well, as it was said by a road-thug in “The Walking Dead’ last week:
“If you have to eat a shit sandwich, it’s best to bite, chew, and swallow. Then repeat. It goes faster that way.”
Hold your nose.
You *can* do it.
We are literally counting on you and all others like you who are as conflicted as you are on this.
I don’t like the taste either…
Mr Trump has made a mockery of this election process and I regard his level of “honesty and trustworthiness” to be on a par with that of Mrs Clinton. I am not, nor will I be, beholden to anyone to simply fall in line. I know I am but one person, however I value my individual vote much greater than a “shit sandwich”
Be an adult and accept the fact that BAD is better than WORSE.
Stop putting your FELLINGZ over FACTS.
I’m with you on this. Besides, I’d rather have an uncharismatic old hag pushing gun control against a Congress who would push back than Mr Dealmaker getting an AWB finally passed.
Adult ?
If you believe voting for a narcissistic megalomaniac because it is your only peceived choice,is the “Adult” thing to do, have at it. Me. I’ll maintain my independence and support a suitable third party candidate
Would my fellow gun lovers allow me to make an old farm boy analogy regarding the content of most of the comments here .
A fox can dig a hole under the pen and carry off a chicken or two while you sleep and most everyone will know this .
What a lot of people don’t know is a raccoon can unfasten the latch that fastens the door shut and will kill every chicken in the coop in one night , seemingly for the hell of it .
A deer will walk through your corn field and nibble on the ears of corn , a raccoon will invite their entire family to the party , ride every stalk to the ground and decimate the entire season .
I think God is letting everybody know who the Raccoon in this race is . Old white eyes Trump .
Oggy:
If HRC is nominated, there will effectively be two choices in this election: her, or not-her.
‘Taking a third way’ seems to me is effectively choosing ‘her’.
YMMV.
If you want to play Chess,and hope you don’t get out manouvered, go ahead. I’ll vote my conscience, thanks vey much.
What we need is Condoleeza. Those who vote based on what they think and those who vote based on who they are could all get behind Condoleeza.
I could get along with that, but I heard she doesn’t want the job/wouldn’t take it.
Which shows she is, in fact, smarter than the folks running for the job.
Interesting Catch-22, no?
Well I ain’t voting for Condi. Architect of the Iraq war. The dumbest shite in history. And I like black women…
Wait. I thought that was Cheney. Or Rumsfeld. Or Bush.
I get so confused about who the scapegoat is…
I would never vote for any of the ‘tards that lied and got us into the financial, political and military mess that is/was Iraq – worse mistake than Viet Nam – by far, and ramifications changed geo-political history against our country probably more than any event in history. Rummy, Tricky Dick, Lacky Condy or Prince George Bush – would never get my vote.
Personally I do not trust trump on this issue as far as I can throw him. However, I trust hillery on this issue as far as I can throw the trump towers.
Ummm…yeah. My thoughts mirrored. And I spend an inordinate amount of time cheerleading on pro-Cruz FB groups(as well as send him $-the only pol I have ever given too). LOTS of FB folks vowing to never support the donald. I will grudgingly vote for the orange one if he emerges as the “one”. Heck I like Donnie more than Dole,McCain and maybe Mitt-which ain’t sayin’ much…sigh.
Either way, we are going to take it right up mainstreet. I will vote for anyone but Hillary. I couldn’t stand to hear her speak for 8 years. Obama slightly entertains me when I get to umm counting. Hillary just makes me cringe and want to hide under my bed when she speaks.
Zaphod Trump is only running because he intends to steal the Hear of Gold.
Don’t vote for stupid!
Dammit. Heart of Gold.
The key thing to remember is 42.
What was the question again?
But what was the question?
(Aw, crap, Gov…ya beat me) 🙂
Screw all that. Just make sure you have your towel.
It will be worth it if Trump and Melania abandon “Zarniwoop” Clinton in the rain on the ruler of the universe’s homeworld.
Oh how that made me laugh! Be careful of telephones!!!
One thing to remember about any Democrat who is elected President next fall. Most likely, both the Senate and the House will remain Republican. Gridlock can be a wonderful thing.
Assuming Trump does win the Republican nomination, it will be important to see whom he chooses for a running mate. A Trump/Cruz ticket could be very good.
We have no idea how Trump would behave after his inauguration. Remember a former Navy Seal and pro wrestler named Jesse Ventura? He wasn’t half bad as governor. Not exceptional, but far from a disaster.
If Trump or Cruz were to be elected president, you still have gridlock. House and Senate have already stated they will not work with either.
Please… Ventura? The same douche who sued a grieving widow after her war hero husband was gunned down in cold blood because of a comment he made in a book? There is a special place in hell for him, have no doubt.
Being a War Hero doesn’t give you to right to sell untruth as truth and slander other people, Ventura being a weirdo D-bag not withstanding.
Would I prefer Cruz over Trump? Yes. Does Cruz have a reasonable chance of beating the Hildabeast one on one. Nope. Nada. Not a chance. Too Christian – the dems, the establishment (including the RNC) and their allies in the mainstream media will crucify him, for sure…..
Like Trump or not, he’s the only Republican with the popularity to draw votes from: the dems, minorities, blue collar union workers, millennials, plus bring a bunch of new-comers from all walks of life who have never bothered to vote before into the polls to pull Trump’s lever. These people will not vote for Cruz.
The democrats know this and they’re scared sh*tless with Trump. The sooner we all realize this the better. Losing to the Democrats is not a sane option.
You’re assuming that the media won’t crucify Trump once he’s the nominee. And they surely will do precisely that. All they’ll have to do is point out the same inconsistencies in his positions that we’ve been pointing out. A rude, obnoxious principled man people can accept, but he’s not principled and that will be made clear if/when he is nominated.
No, I am assuming the media and the RNC will crucify Trump, too. It will kill Cruz, but it won’t stick with Trump … he only gets stronger…..
” It will kill Cruz, but it won’t stick with Trump … he only gets stronger…..”
THIS.
The voters know Trump is a cheat who wanted to kick Grandma out of her house to build a parking lot, bankrupted himself to stuff his own pockets with cash, and is a known liar.
They will still show up on election day and happily vote for him.
This is the one good thing about Obama’s presidency.
With *ZERO* repercussions from his own party on the bald-faced LIES he told the electorate to pass Obamacare, the American public is just fine with a liar as a President.
That is Obama’s actual legacy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpa-5JdCnmo
“You’re assuming that the media won’t crucify Trump once he’s the nominee.”
Ahem. The media has already been trying their best to crucify Trump . . . and failing. Trump is one of the few American public figures who doesn’t appear to be afraid of the media. When they attack him they lose. You have to wonder just who is going to crucify whom . . .
Same here. Vote for Ted in the primary, and for trump in the general, if I have to, but only because Hillary is a vile, evil, whore, with no morals, and she made it clear she is the enemy to the people of the gun. And the bern is little better so id probably still vote
Trump over the burn. In some ways I think the bern could be more dangerous because he’s more moderate and could easier swing middle grounders
If Republicans keep voting for Cruz in the primary, there may not be a chance to ever vote for Trump in the general election. If Trump fails to win the minimum amount of delegates the convention goes contested. The RNC establishment prefers the Hildabeast over Trump and will resurrect Romney …. handing over the election once again to the Democrats. As planned.
Then Vote for Bernie.
Yeah, right. Socialism = equals an authoritarian government. Good thinking.
If you’ve been paying attention, Bernie went from slightly anti gun to full blown Bloomberg acolyte to try to clench the nomination. AWB, Universal Background Check, etc. The only thing he’s right on is not suing gun manufacturers. He used to talk about Vermont being pro gun and states need left alone on the issue, and now he’s magically for complete federal hegemony on firearms. He’s just trying to win and is showing he’s just another politician like the rest.
I am convinced that if Trump is the nominee he will lose the election to Hilary, lose us the Senate, and lose us the Supreme Court for an entire generation.
That being said, I’d vote for a Ham Sandwitch before I’d vote for Hillary.
At least you can be certain a ham sandwich would not get eaten alive by ISIS.
LOL! Comment of the day, right there.
Trump might lose to Hillary, but Ted Cruz would definitely lose to Hillary. I would greatly prefer Cruz, but he’s even less electable, I’m afraid.
For what it’s worth, that’s not what the present polling data says and what the polling data has been saying for months.
So, I’m curious. I see people saying Cruz can’t beat Hillary a lot and I wonder where it comes from. I don’t see any reason Cruz can’t beat Clinton.
The polling actually says the opposite: both Cruz and Rubio are projected to win against Clinton, but Trump is projected as losing.
” I don’t see any reason Cruz can’t beat Clinton.”
The *millions* of Blue-Dog Dems who showed up in the primaries to vote for Trump who won’t show up to vote if he isn’t the final candidate.
THEY are the key…
“The *millions* of Blue-Dog Dems who showed up in the primaries to vote for Trump who won’t show up to vote if he isn’t the final candidate.
THEY are the key…”
Again, though, it is only an assumption that they are voting their true conscience in the primaries and will stick with Trump in the General Election.
The primary vote is only a vote for who you want the R candidate to be, not a vote for who you want for President. It is well within the realm of possibility that a lion’s share of Trump “supporters” do not favor him over Hillary (or any other D).
The numbers mentioned above support such a supposition as well. Perhaps Hillary’s numbers in the primaries are down not because people do not support her, but because they, for the time being, busy trying to make sure Trump is her opponent.
The fact of the matter is that we simply cannot extrapolate from the primaries how the general election turn out. Heard a stat recently that said no front-runner early in the primary process has ever been elected President. Think about that one…
Once again, an election where one has to choose whom to vote against because there’s no one to vote for.
It’s a shame and I think it was best parsed by someone who said ‘Trump can’t be counted on to do the right thing but Hillary can be counted on to do the wrong thing’.
I always thought the “Heaven” comment from Bloomberg was kind of strange. I’m a Jew. Bloomberg is a Jew.
Jews do not believe in “Heaven” – at least not in the way that Christians think of Heaven. We really don’t know what happens after you die except that you are “with G-d.”
There is a place called “Gehinnom” which I suppose is sort of like purgatory, but the end state is always “with G-d.”
I think Mike needs to brush up on his theological, as well as his firearms facts.
GOD, there I said it for u
“not in the way that Christians think of Heaven. We really don’t know what happens after you die except that you are “with G-d.”
That’s different than I think of “Heaven?” Good to know.
😉
More like Heaven isn’t a “reward” in the sense of do X and you go here don’t do X and you go Someplace Else.
Bloomberg’s theology is simply misinformed Jewish theology – kind of like his knowledge about guns.
If Hillary wins, be prepared to hand over your AR, or be prepared to fight. It’s that simple. Want to avoid that? Then vote Trump. Trump may do all kinds of sillyness. But, he needs something. He needs popularity and approval. He won’t get that with civil war. Hillary doesn’t give a f**k. She’ll burn this whole nation and slaughter millions to get what she wants.
It is a simple choice between Trump and Hilary Clinton. Trump may be a unknown quantity, but we already know all about Hilary and it’s more than enough to choose Trump over Hildabeast.
Trump plays to win and that’s what people like. His opponents point to his business failures, but they oddly ignore his successes. All the wealthy people I know have had deals go south. They keep truckin’, just like Donald. You run their names through your state’s business licensing website and you’ll see scores of inactive and dead companies under their names, in addition to the successful ones. No one bats a thousand.
Most of the Republicans I know are realists, and they know Trump in the hot seat is better than Hillary in the hot seat. Trump will come around on issues only because he wants to maintain his power. If he waffles on guns, we turn up the heat to 11 and make him jump. Trump says he won’t dismantle the current state of the gun in the US, whereas Hillary has repeatedly said she would try.
For whatever reason, gun rights in this country are very difficult to restore as compared to other rights. I’ll take a pro-gun candidate and fight him on everything else, rather than an anti-gun candidate that I have to fight on the gun issue and everything else as well.
If the Republicans want to ensure staying around for another election cycle, they need to suck it up, sign off on the Donald, or they are toast.
“Most of the Republicans I know are realists, and they know Trump in the hot seat is better than Hillary in the hot seat.”
The real question is, “Why is that our choice?” Why do we have to take a Trump to avoid a Hillary?
I can’t help but think this is some cosmic message that the “other side” (ie, tyranny or whatever you want to call it) has all the power.
” Trump will come around on issues only because he wants to maintain his power. If he waffles on guns, we turn up the heat to 11 and make him jump. “
I’d like to hear your evidence to support the notion that Trump will “jump” to anyone and any evidence that he “comes around” on anything that opposes what Trump wants.
Shoot. Just the other day he said the military would do whatever he says to do because he’d be the “leader.” Does that sound like the kind of personality that “comes around,” especially if the “pressure” is from peons like us?
Trump will build the wall, bring our jobs back and a VEPR 12 in every closet. Trumpagedden is coming for the SJWs and the gun grabbers.
Cthulhu for President 2016! No more years!
Vote the Elder Party!
It looks like our best option my be to elect Trump, and then immediately impeach him and replace him with the VP.
And I have no doubt he would very quickly do something that is an impeachable offense.
Seems like a choice between a Uranium bomb and a Plutonium bomb. Beyond the Second Amendment, Trump could make the socialists look good by comparison. Perhaps without even getting elected. Do you want to choose between Fat Man and Little Boy?
The federal government will not reform itself. We must take the power back to the states. The one way to do that is an Article 5 Convention.
And don’t buy the NAGR/RMGO spin. 2A is at risk from the courts, municipalities, states, executive orders, or old fashioned congressional constitution amendments. There is nothing more to fear with a convention than a day of congressional session.
That’s why this election is just the foreground. Get on the convention bandwagon and let’s wrench some state power back starting now.
Given the actual state of the union, it is curious that there is so little interest (based on the small number of states that actually officially call for a convention) in a Constitutional Convention. One conclusion is that the number of people in the country who recognize the sad state of affairs is actually horribly less than we suppose on forums like this. If we have a majority of the populace who are constitutionalists, their lack of appearance says gun rights in this country are destined for obliteration, with the public approving. And it is not just the second amendment that is in trouble. It looks like the pro-America people have stood up to be counted, and that number is embarrassingly small.
Because that is a risky-as-Hell option to take…
“Because that is a risky-as-Hell option to take…”
You are right about that.
Heard Neal Boortz comment about this about a decade ago. Neal went into some interesting detail, but the gist of his remark was “Be careful what you wish for.”
The ‘other side’ would like a Convention, too. They would chomp at the bit for a chance to gut the Constitution of ALL it’s barriers to their Utopian dream. As polarized as we are today, and as “unfaithful” as so many supposed Constitutionalists act when they actually get into office…I myself don’t trust a Convention would go our way.
Just think about it. Given the chance, they’d
(a) Remove 2A.
(b) Remove or drastically change the 4th, 5th and 6th.
(c) 9A and 10A would be gone.
(d) Probably change balance of power between the three branches, such as (but not limited to) giving the President increased “legislative” power.
And that would just be their first day.
A Convention at this point in our history would be a very risky bet…
A constitutional convention can only, only propose amendments. Then the entire convention must approve whichever amendments. Then the amendments must go to the states and be properly ratified. Amendments cannot legally be changed at the state level, and must be voted on as is. The “risk” you fear is not the constitutional convention, but the people of the country. If the situation is so far gone that the conclusion is “the people” would betray the original constitution, then we are only talking about a siege. And with almost all major sieges throughout history, it is only a matter of time before the defenders are strangled. The besieged are not in a position to rally the public to their side.
The requirement limiting the authority to declare war to Congress would be gone, not that it has mattered for the last 75 years. They just wouldn’t have to argue with the fact that they are abdicating their responsibility.
Better to avoid “risk” (a truly American characteristic) and hope to die quietly before the republic is wiped-out gradually and painlessly.
@SamIAm
The last time there was a convention in this country, it was supposed to simply propose amendments to the articles of confederation. But don’t worry…any awful proposed amendments would have to be ratified by ALL states.
Instead, we got a totally now constitution…and they were able to unilaterally change how it would be ratified, with only nine of thirteen states necessary. Fortunately it worked out fairly well (there’s little wrong in this country that wouldn’t be fixed if we’d actually abide by the constitution we already have).
But a future convention could propose ANYTHING (there is precedent) and there is already precedent for it changing the ratification method and thus getting it ratified, regardless.
The delegates to a modern convention would have to contend with 200yr legal and cultural history of using the “rules” of amendment. The founders were trying to perfect a 10yr old confederacy (yes, a confederacy) that was inherently unworkable. In the constitution that is current, the means for ratification is established, and a constitutional convention could not displace those provisions. But even if an attempt was made to create an entirely new constitution, ratification by the states would still be required. We are long past the time when a simple group of delegates can completely displace an existing government through any “convention”, while ignoring the rest of the nation (which is somewhat more complex than the one faced by the founders).
In the end, the fear of “the people” of the nation remains the problem. And if “the people” would tolerate/allow any group of delegates to completely dissolve two hundred years of conduct under the current constitution, then there is nothing to hold them back. Interesting how we “conservatives” are all about “the rule of law”, but when threatened with majority will to change that law, we are afraid to contest the issue in the means established under the law. We like people power so long as it is used the way we want.
You can tell a lot about someone’s character by how they treat those they disagree with.
Based on that, Trump has absolutely no character.
And fails the “decent human being test.”
Why are we voting for him? There are far better candidates who are decent human beings.
Lol, that’s funny, thanks!
Cruz sure has a lot of people fooled – probably because Trump is no great option either, nobody is looking under the covers. Also, any democrat will crush Ted Cruz, who has 0 crossover support from any demo.
“Also, any democrat will crush Ted Cruz, who has 0 crossover support from any demo.”
There this is again.
What evidence is there to support this statement? I ask because very nearly all polling (for several months now) show Cruz beating both Hillary and Sanders.
So, I’m really curious about this. Why is that when people are asked…many people across many polling platforms (ie, not just one pollster), the result is D losing to Cruz, yet so many people say “Cruz can’t win.”
I’m not putting all my eggs in the polling basket, so don’t misunderstand. But I sure would like to know what evidence exists that even suggests that Cruz is “unelectable,” because such evidence flies in the face of the data we do have.
Look at the states he is winning big in. They’re only states that vote overwhelmingly Republican anyway. He can’t even win a single Southern state against a New York businessman.
If Cruz is the nominee Hillary Clinton will destroy him and the media will run wild with the nutty Seven Mountain Dominionism his father and his church believe in. It’ll be over for him before it even begins.
The crystal ball sure must be nice to have around…you cash in on the stock market every day?
Below you say the nomination process is not indicative of how November will go. Now you say because Trump is winning in certain states, it is indicative how November will go.
Interesting…
I would rather not have any of the so called candidates wandering around the white house with his or her thumb on the nuclear trigger. Cruz as president and a republican controlled senate and house will be great for the second amendment but an unmitigated disaster for everything else. Clinton will be a disaster for the second amendment while she is selling out to wall street and continuing her disastrous foreign policy of regime change and democracy everywhere but here. No thanks. Write-in or third party or nothing. I like looking at myself in the mirror.
Yep.
I’ll be supporting Cruz in the PA primary. That is more a vote of conscience than anything since it will all likely be decided by that point.
As far as a Trump presidency, all I can say is, in hindsight, even the Black Death had its good points.
Trump isn’t going to win the nomination. He won’t have 50% by the time of the convention, and people are voting 2-1 against Trump. When it comes time to settle on one, those two-thirds of the delegates will settle on one.
For everyone saying Trump is the only one that can beat Hillary, here’s yesterday’s poll result:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/poll-bernie-sanders-better-than-hillary-clinton-against-donald-trump
Double digit losses to both Clinton and Sanders…
Grain of salt…but where’s the ‘data’ saying he can beat her, or more to the point, that he’s the only one that can beat her?
Be careful of polls, have you or anyone you know ever been polled?
You are missing my point. I’m not talking about putting faith in these polls; I’m pointing out the absence of any data supporting the oft-made assertion that Trump alone can win in November.
Right or wrong, the poll is data…it’s there. The assertion that Trump is the only candidate that can beat Hillary is completely unsubstantiated. It’s “Feels” and nothing more.
The only thing that gives any faith in these polls at all is the shear number of them, from different sources, different methodologies and different polled groups.
I do not think these polls are definitive nor specifically predictive, but I also know that there is no equivalent data pointing to the conclusion that “only Trump can beat Hillary.”
If someone has such data, I’d love to see it. I don’t think it exists.
My point is that you are trusting data/polls which is likely manufactured.
November is far out and the nomination process isn’t close to being over. Polls about who or who can’t beat Hillary today are meaningless.
“My point is that you are trusting data/polls which is likely manufactured.’
Then I’m sorry to say that you making that point is idiotic since I have said, repeatedly, that I am most specifically not trusting the polls.
Go back and read my multiple posts again…slowly. Read. Every. Word.
Here’s my point: The claim is repeatedly made that “Only Trump can beat Hillary.” There is ZERO DATA supporting that claim.
That’s my point. That a claim about the November election is made without a shred of data suggesting, much less ‘proving’ the claim is true.
To further emphasize this ‘data vacuum,’ I do also point at that right or wrong, there DOES exist SOME data that Trump loses to Hillary. Whether the poll data is correct or not is immaterial; it exists as data. That it exists emphasizes the absence of any data showing Trump is the only candidate that CAN beat Clinton.
“November is far out and the nomination process isn’t close to being over. Polls about who or who can’t beat Hillary today are meaningless.”
Agreed, and I even said that above. Here, I’ll quote one of my above comments:
“The fact of the matter is that we simply cannot extrapolate from the primaries how the general election turn out. “
But…AGAIN…that is immaterial to my point which is that there is, and I’ll say it once again, precisely zero data in existence that Trump is the ONLY person that has even a chance of beating Hillary.
Yet, that claim is often made; I’ve seen it here and elsewhere. What is the basis to make this claim? Wishful thinking? Some magical, psychic insight into the future?
There’s certainly no rational basis to make that claim. That’s what I am addressing…the claim that we MUST vote for Trump in the primaries since he is our only hope of winning in November.
@JR, lol, calm down, you say don’t believe polls, but at same time you’re asking for data to support whether one candidate can beat another? You don’t see the contradictiin? Why do you get so worked up and inflammatory in your posts?
Data does not have to come from polls.
People are making a baseless claim, yet stating it as an absolute. It p’s us off when the anti’s do it. We should not do it, too.
That’s my point. How do we claim the “we are more logical and fact based” high ground when we are making the same irrational mistake?
I cheer you for your insight and comments. But for just a moment, contemplate your audience….
Anything and Everything can be considered a baseless claim, including the claim the “we are more logical and fact based”. You’re calling for data, yet at the same time saying you don’t believe the data. Nothing is black and white.
No, what he is saying is one cannot point to “facts”, no matter how nebulous, on one hand, and point to no facts in another, both supporting a claim. If one relies on “facts” to support one argument, one cannot then point to no “facts” in support of another argument of the same subject.
Thank-you, Sam. You get the point of the argument.
And yes. I’m starting to consider the audience a little more carefully.
I’ve always taken it as an axiom that polls about the general election are useless before Labor Day. When I was a kid, I remember George H.W. Bush losing to Mike Dukakis 55% – 38% in polling from July of 1988. (Spoiler alert: Bush won.) http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/26/us/dukakis-lead-widens-according-to-new-poll.html
This year, my skepticism of polls reached a fever pitch after Tuesday’s primary election in Michigan. Sanders, you’ll recall, was down 20 points to Hillary last week.
Polling smells even more rotten than usual this cycle.
I agree, but that’s not my point.
Again…the point is where is the data, any data at all, saying “Trump is the ONLY candidate that can win in November”?
There is none. There is, right or wrong, data that shows Trump losing (and losing big) to both Hillary and Sanders in November while Rubio and Cruz can win.
If that data is wrong it does not matter…it does not change the larger point that there simply is no rational, evidence based reason to state “Trump is the only one that can win against Hillary.”
We claim we use facts and data and logic to formulate our arguments and the anti’s don’t. They anti’s are all about “Feelings.” Well, this “Trump is the only candidate that CAN win” is nothing but feelings. There is no data to support it.
Let’s not fall into that trap, please.
Not falling into that trap … good advice.
Since many political polls are bogus and actually public relation promotions for the particular candidates who pay for these cooked results, I prefer to create my own. I spend much of my working day on the phone with working people from all walks of life across the USA, I engage many of them in political conversation, and have done so over the last six months or so.
My polling is not scientific, but it’s showing overwhelming support for Trump. Working people from both parties are favoring Trump by a significant amount. I now believe he is the only candidate capable of beating the corrupt democrat machine … and the democrat leaders know it, and want him gone. Unfortunately their friends in the RNC and media will continue their efforts to try and make that happen.
When you hear Trump will lose to Hillary, or any democrat, don’t believe it. Start talking to people and find out yourself…..
“When you hear Trump will lose to Hillary, or any democrat, don’t believe it. “
Again…not my point. At all.
My question is where is the data, something other than wishful feels, that says Trump is the only candidate that can beat Hillary?
There is none. Therefore, the claim is irrational.
WHY is the basic question/point so hard to get across? There have been numerous people now irrelevantly ‘attack’ my point on the basis of the “poll data that shows Trump losing” though I’ve stated it clearly an equal number of times that that is not what I am talking about.
This is a bit of an alarming observation…PTOG sit on our laurels about being rational and logical to the anti’s feelings. My faith in that has been shaken.
Actually, as I think about it, it dovetails with the same irrationality we see pop up in OC related stories. Interesting…
Interesting, most interesting.
I agree with your observation about the lack of “data” pointing to a declared result. What is also interesting is the commentary about logic vs. feelings. I think our great weakness is anchoring our political position on logic. There is an old saying that people are not convinced of your cause because of the height of your logic, but by the depth of your emotion/passion.
“Logic” (and facts) are foreign to the majority of the nation. Because of generations of education where “hard” subjects (math, science) are marginalized as irrelevant to individual life, depending on “rational” thinking or persuasion is a path to failure. The largest issue facing POTG is we lack a compelling emotional proposition that can resonate with both the “undecided” (which, I submit, do not exist) and the rabid anti-gun crowd. This failure was highlighted in the latest case before SCOTUS, where Justice Thomas asked (his second oral question in 10 years) the government plaintiff to identify another constitutional right that is/could be suppressed due to a mere misdemeanor. The plaintiff could not identify such. Is it logical to single-out only one constitutional right that can be suspended over a misdemeanor charge? No. Does it make people “feel” good. Absolutely.
Nothing above detracts from your central premise that too many people are making declarations about political viability of a candidate based on a general wish, versus even the flimsiest of “data”.
Sam, you make a fair point.
The question that remains then, is…if we are willing to be irrational when it suits us, what claim do we have to criticize the “other side” when they do the same thing?
We tout the ‘moral high ground’ on the basis of rationality and logic. Seems that’s just a rhetorical device, then, if we are so willing to throw it under the bus when it gets in our way.
Signed,
Conflicted in NC
The knot we need to overcome is that emotion drives activity; logic supports the logic of an argument. We need a compelling pro-2A “argument” that can persuade the anti-gun folks their thinking and outcomes will hurt them, individually, collectively and personally. They live in a fantasy world supported by yet more emotion. We also need solid logic, facts and data to close the deal. Problem is we do not want to meet the opposition where they are weakest – emotion. We keep pounding logic where they are strongest – emotion.
For all the Malthists, your day is nigh.
There is a win hiding in here. Trump/Cruz ticket. Anybody thought of that?? I think it would be a good thing.
Kasich.
Personally, if Trump wins the Presidency, I’d rather see a Cruz SCOTUS nomination than Cruz withering in VP obscurity.
The more the left-right political machine demonizes Trump, the more the disenfranchised public supports him.
If it’s Trump vs. Hillary in the general election, then I’m voting for Hillary.
They’re both abominations and should be in jail for something. Still, with Hillary, the GOP will fight at least as hard against her statism as they did against Obama’s. Actually, probably more, because honestly disagreeing with a woman, and then being called sexist, is a slightly less stinging slander in America than is honestly disagreeing with a black, and then being called racist. Spaghetti-spined Republicans may get a little uppity to oppose Hillary. Not so with Trump.
The Establishment having failed to derail his nomination, and his having won the presidency, they’ll fall right in line and do Trump’s imperial bidding. They’ll ride his trabea triumphalis tails and stay in power. “He’s an SOB, but he’s OUR SOB!”, they’ll claim.
The race between those two comes down, therefore, not to a battle between the lesser of two evils. They’re both off the charts evil. Rather, it’s a matter of how compliant and complicit you want the GOP to be. Do you want a loyal opposition, or do you want obsequious co-conspirators?
That sounds more like an argument to vote for a Democratic Congress than to embrace one of the leading voices for gun control in the country.
Yea, we heard reasoning like this in 2008 when some Republican elitists were aghast at the prospect of voting for Palin on the ticket.
The trouble is, the GOP is the party of limp-wristed squishes, who have just given Obama more than he was asking for in the budget Omnibus bill. The DNC got EVERYTHING they wanted, and more from the GOP.
The GOP won’t oppose Hillary. They’ll roll over and play “scratch my tummy.”
It isn’t as though a vote for Trump is an endorsement above all humanity. Not any more than a vote for George Bush was some kind of hypothetical draft and selection out of 6 billion competing choices. The choice was very much worse, both times the nincompoop Gore and the imbecilic fantasist Kerry. If it comes down to Clinton vs Trump, what do you do? Clinton is as crooked as a dog’s hing leg and has demonstrated gross negligence and irresponsibility as Sec of State. Trump sure isn’t the mad genius he claims to be, but neither is he a petty, vindictive ideologue who would cheerfully regulate every last detail of our lives. It’s not as if George Washington or Calvin Coolidge were on the ballot. Don’t wanna vote for somebody you don’t like? That’s a choice, but you don’t get to bitch about what you won’t at least attempt to participate in.
I’m just glad the axle on the “clown car” broke and were down to just 4 vs 40. Why wasn’t there this kind of rush on the Dems side of the election?? You guys should have seen the 2 page Rep. ballot we saw in Alabama. There were lot’s of errors almost like they were trying to confuse voters on purpose. BTW somebody named “Twinkle” got voted in. She’ll prob hire her sister also named “Twinkle” and her other sister named “Little Star” to round out the lunacy.
People need to realize that there is no uncertainty on the DNC side of this. Hillary will be the nominee. She has the super-delegates locked up, and had them locked up before the first primary was even underway. If Sanders put in a Michigan-like showing in every other state from now on, he’ll have the ability to make some noise at the convention, but Hillary will still have the situation locked up.
The only question in anyone’s mind right now should be “Trump or Cruz?”
Click user name for a surprise….
You anti-Trumpers will change your minds when Donald turns his guns on Hillary. You think what he did to Jeb Bush and Rubio was savage? Just you wait. You’ll be unable to resist. It will be glorious.
@John H.
With the difference that Trump has much, much more actual “ammunition” to use on Clinton than he does with his GOP rivals. No need to resort to callow personal insults. Oh yes, that would be extremely entertaining. No holding back like Romney did with Obama. Trump will let her have it.
And yet, as entertaining as that would be, I would much rather see her methodically dissected by Ted Cruz. He will make her look like a sputtering idiot. Without ever breaking a sweat. Without ever raising his voice. Without ever losing his smile. I’ve seen him do it, time and again, to people who would make Hilary Clinton look like an idiot by comparison. It would be a true thing of beauty.
But that’s me. Others, perhaps most, might rather see it done Trump style. I don’t know which would be more effective in winning the election. Regardless, I’m stocking some popcorn for the debates in the general election. From my perspective, I get a good show either way.
Some questions for ‘ Sam I Am ‘ .
What are your reasons for being a ‘ Nationalist ‘ ?
Would you be a ‘ Nationalist ‘ no matter what nation you were a citizen in ?
Is your ‘ Nationalism ‘ based on solid ( moral based ) principles ?
Would you be a ‘ Nationalist ‘ if America became dark and evil ?
Would you be a ‘ Nationalist ‘ if we had a different beginning , history ?
Would you be a ‘ Nationalist ‘ if our constitution prohibited gun ownership or free speech ?
I love my country too , and ‘ I am ‘ willing to die for the truths enshrined in our founding documents if the freedoms guaranteed to me by them and the God that inspired these freedoms is threatened .
I do not swear allegiances to any Nation , flag , men or documents if any of these things stray away from the principles and fundamental truths I swear my soul too . The God of Abraham , Isaac and Jacob and his only begotten son Jesus Christ .
I happen to be one who believes that the founding principles of America and documents that represent them were inspired by and are based upon Christian theology and if and when these ideas and the actions of America veer astray from this foundation my allegiance will end .
I am not a ‘ Nationalist ‘.
The questions, while interesting, are not relevant. I am here and now. This is the nation we have, these are the circumstances. While fun to posit hypotheticals, it is unproductive. Should conditions here change such that all the principles and characteristics become opposite of what was founded, then I would not be a defender of that nation. There are limits. And we may be fast approaching them.
Comments are closed.