The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[chipbennett]

I sincerely doubt I can concoct the necessary verbiage to sway anyone's opinion that so despises Cruz to convince them that the last thing Cruz wants to do is violate their Constitutional rights...especially when they make every attempt to justify every untoward comment Trump makes. So I'll save my time.

Actually, I've generally only pointed out where Trump has been mis-quoted or taken out of context, in order to sensationalize what he's said. (Ironically, I've never even said that I agree with everything - or even much of anything in particular - that Trump has said. I merely point out the sensationalism.)

In this case, I quoted Cruz in his entirety, and then asked for a reasonable explanation.

 

[chipbennett]

Bobby Jindal: I'll support Trump if he's the nominee

Dammit Bobby...

Well, I guess Jindal can be added to the Blacklist* now.

* Not purple, unfortunately. There are actually Republicans creating and supporting the creation of such Blacklists. But Donald Trump is the alleged Fascist.

 

[chipbennett]

Yeah, it's damned silly. Nothing Cruz has ever said would lead one to believe that tripe. The stuff some people are willing to blindly over look in supporting one candidate while sweating over every nit on another truly has me shaking my head.

Believe what you will.

[video=youtube;vt-vG_TdOT4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt-vG_TdOT4[/video]

 

[chipbennett]

Until this morning, I was operating under the assumption that Trump hadn't ever read the Constitution. But then I saw something on Facebook that changed my impression of the Donald. When it comes to changing the first Amendment to loosen up libel laws, his use of imminent domain, and questioning, first Obama's and later Cruz's qualifications for president proves that he does know something about the Constitution...It's all wrong, warped, and twisted but he at least knows those things are in there.

You probably shouldn't believe everything you read on Facebook. Where has Trump said that he wants to change the First Amendment?

 

[chipbennett]

Please do not take what is said in oral argument as what he really believes. He was asking a question to draw out an argument from the advocate. Plus, I don't think that case really helps, assuming that Cruz's parents complied with the law about registering a foreign birth to an American citizen.

But we don't know whether that assumption is valid, because the records are sealed, and anyone who dares ask about them is labeled as a Birther.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

After thinking about this for a bit - I think it's probably time for a virtual cease fire in all of the hostilities here. I'm offering this as a suggestion.
Here's why:
1) I think that people have already picked their "boy" for this round.
2) It's either Trump or "Anti-Trump"
3) Right now "Anti-Trump"== Cruz
4) With the way Trump has acted - you could come out with a news flash that he was Mother Freaking Theresa - and have a hard time convincing the Anti-Trump crowd that he still wasn't almost as bad as the Witch.
5) Likewise you could come out with the news that Trump molests small farm animals, video at 11pm - and Trump supporters would find a way to rationalize it. And anyone against Trump is an ignorant rube under control of the Establishment.

Whatever side we're on - probably time to remember that there are valid reasons that good, honest folks support Trump. And there are valid reasons why good honest folks have a major issue with him. He is, by nature divisive - that does get him publicity.

The Witch is still the Witch.

And we all, by virtue of the fact that we are here, like guns.

 

[Expat]

Frankly I am still a bit mystified by the ardency on both sides of the Trump divide.

 

[chipbennett]

After thinking about this for a bit - I think it's probably time for a virtual cease fire in all of the hostilities here. I'm offering this as a suggestion.
Here's why:
1) I think that people have already picked their "boy" for this round.
2) It's either Trump or "Anti-Trump"
3) Right now "Anti-Trump"== Cruz
4) With the way Trump has acted - you could come out with a news flash that he was Mother Freaking Theresa - and have a hard time convincing the Anti-Trump crowd that he still wasn't almost as bad as the Witch.
5) Likewise you could come out with the news that Trump molests small farm animals, video at 11pm - and Trump supporters would find a way to rationalize it. And anyone against Trump is an ignorant rube under control of the Establishment.

Whatever side we're on - probably time to remember that there are valid reasons that good, honest folks support Trump. And there are valid reasons why good honest folks have a major issue with him. He is, by nature divisive - that does get him publicity.

The Witch is still the Witch.

And we all, by virtue of the fact that we are here, like guns.

Trump would not be my first choice of candidates, but he's the one that I'll vote for, given the slate of candidates with whom I'm presented.

What "cease fire" can there be, when the "Anti-Trump", so-called Republicans are outright saying that they will a) not vote, b) run third party, or c) (heaven forbid) vote for Hilary, all in the name of #NeverTrump? What "cease fire" can there be, when the "Anti-Trump", so-called Republicans are creating Fascist Blacklists of anyone who dares to support Trump? What "cease fire" can there be, when the "Anti-Trump", so-called Republicans expect Trump supporters to play by a different set of rules, and (as we have always done, for Dole, McCain, Romney, etc.) hold our noses to vote for yet another RINO should Trump not win the nomination? (I will, of course. I'll vote for anyone to keep Hilary out of the White House.)

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Frankly I am still a bit mystified by the ardency on both sides of the Trump divide.

Like Obama, he is divisive. VERY. How many people do you know that are ambivalent on Obama? Trump I think is even more so. That's not a knock on him per se. It's just a fact.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

After thinking about this for a bit - I think it's probably time for a virtual cease fire in all of the hostilities here. I'm offering this as a suggestion.
Here's why:
1) I think that people have already picked their "boy" for this round.
2) It's either Trump or "Anti-Trump"
3) Right now "Anti-Trump"== Cruz
4) With the way Trump has acted - you could come out with a news flash that he was Mother Freaking Theresa - and have a hard time convincing the Anti-Trump crowd that he still wasn't almost as bad as the Witch.
5) Likewise you could come out with the news that Trump molests small farm animals, video at 11pm - and Trump supporters would find a way to rationalize it. And anyone against Trump is an ignorant rube under control of the Establishment.

Whatever side we're on - probably time to remember that there are valid reasons that good, honest folks support Trump. And there are valid reasons why good honest folks have a major issue with him. He is, by nature divisive - that does get him publicity.

The Witch is still the Witch.

And we all, by virtue of the fact that we are here, like guns.

By virtue of the positions Trump has publicly held in the past, for many of us, it's difficult to discern his pivot point(s) on them that now explains his current blurry positions. In that way, it's difficult to believe we'd be voting for anything other than another democrat. I guess, if we're to choose between a vivid democrat and a person that blurs that line with an almost quantum-like uncertainty, or a whack-o third party person, we get the government we deserve.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Trump would not be my first choice of candidates, but he's the one that I'll vote for, given the slate of candidates with whom I'm presented.

What "cease fire" can there be, when the "Anti-Trump", so-called Republicans are outright saying that they will a) not vote, b) run third party, or c) (heaven forbid) vote for Hilary, all in the name of #NeverTrump? What "cease fire" can there be, when the "Anti-Trump", so-called Republicans are creating Fascist Blacklists of anyone who dares to support Trump? What "cease fire" can there be, when the "Anti-Trump", so-called Republicans expect Trump supporters to play by a different set of rules, and (as we have always done, for Dole, McCain, Romney, etc.) hold our noses to vote for yet another RINO should Trump not win the nomination? (I will, of course. I'll vote for anyone to keep Hilary out of the White House.)

What cease fire can there be - when one of our own here (a reputable dude and a police officer) has been threatened by Trump with being thrown into a database and placed on watch _for his religion alone_ ???

Look - we can play this game all day long. Are you going to convince me with more shrill rhetoric and yelling? Am I going to convince you? I kind of doubt it.

So let's relax the tone of things for a bit, break bread together and chill. We will see who the nominee turns out to be, soon enough. Voting aside, do you think that anything said here affects that? Once we see who the R nominee is, we can decide on the best course of action . We can both look at it, and analyze it and run a mental "what-if" . But cranking up the fiery rhetoric any further is not going to be helpful from what I can see. Hence my comment.

 

[chipbennett]

What cease fire can there be - when one of our own here (a reputable dude and a police officer) has been threatened by Trump with being thrown into a database and placed on watch _for his religion alone_ ???

You're conflating the rhetoric of candidates with the treatment of voters by the party and by other voters. I'm not trying to debate the merits of one candidate over another.

If anything, I'm agreeing with you: we can't even discuss this election with even a modicum of civility, intellectual honesty, and reason. Everything is sensationalized, and made personal.

Look - we can play this game all day long. Are you going to convince me with more shrill rhetoric and yelling? Am I going to convince you? I kind of doubt it.

Please quote any "shrill rhetoric and yelling" that I have employed in these forums, regarding Trump and/or any other aspect of this election?

So let's relax the tone of things for a bit, break bread together and chill. We will see who the nominee turns out to be, soon enough. Voting aside, do you think that anything said here affects that? Once we see who the R nominee is, we can decide on the best course of action . We can both look at it, and analyze it and run a mental "what-if" . But cranking up the fiery rhetoric any further is not going to be helpful from what I can see. Hence my comment.

My "best course of action" is already set: vote per my prerogative in the primary, and vote for the Republican nominee in the general. It's what I've always done.

It isn't the Trump voters/supporters who are threatening to do otherwise. (Or is there a #NeverCruz campaign that has gained non-trivial traction, of which I'm unaware?) It isn't the Trump voters/supporters who are excommunicating and Blacklisting the voters/supporters of other candidates. It isn't the Trump voters/supporters who are threatening to destroy the party itself, by running an independent/third party candidate, and/or voting for Hilary.

The GOP that rolled over and played dead in two elections pitting milquetoast RINOs against Barack Obama is the same GOP that is employing scorched earth tactics to hinder a Trump nomination. The GOP that made Trump sign a "loyalty pledge" is the same GOP that is discussing every means of denying Trump duly earned delegates, every means of forcing a contested convention, and the viability of running a third party/independent candidate should they fail to deny Trump the nomination.

My issue is not with voters/supporters of other candidates. My issue is with a corrupt GOP establishment.

 

[MisterChester]

The Gary Johnson train still has some room in it!

 

[T.Lex]

The Gary Johnson train still has some room in it!

It always does.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

As long as we're talking about dividing... how about Dana/Chris Loesch? My god.

They really turned. They aren't looking for ways to help Cruz win, they're looking for scapegoats for his loss. Seemed like perfectly normal people until this election.

Also, the day after the election might be a good time to flip Rush back on... Can't wait to hear his excuses for Clinton winning.

 

[chipbennett]

As long as we're talking about dividing... how about Dana/Chris Loesch? My god.

They really turned. They aren't looking for ways to help Cruz win, they're looking for scapegoats for his loss. Seemed like perfectly normal people until this election.

Also, the day after the election might be a good time to flip Rush back on... Can't wait to hear his excuses for Clinton winning.

I like Chris Loesch far more than Dana. Back in the day when she was small potatoes in the St. Louis market, I liked a lot of what she had to say, but couldn't stand her schtick ("former valley girl", overly vitriolic, etc.). Chris always came across as someone I'd enjoy having a beverage with.

But I was done with them after the Glen Beck teddy-bears-for-illegals crap. Now, it seems, they've gone entirely off the deep end, right along with Beck.

 

[chipbennett]

The GOP would rather have Ted Cruz lose to Hilary Clinton than to let Trump win:

GOP elites line up behind Ted Cruz - POLITICO

Republican elders, desperate to stop Donald Trump, are increasingly convinced they would rather forfeit the White House than hand their party to the divisive Manhattan billionaire.


That’s why the party’s establishment is suddenly rallying behind Ted Cruz, a man they’ve long despised and who has little chance, in the view of many GOP veterans, of defeating Hillary Clinton on Election Day.




“People think we’re not going to win in November anymore. All the candidates that had a shot at winning don’t appear to have a shot at winning the nomination. Everyone is resigned to that,” said a high-ranking GOP operative about the thinking among Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio alums as well as Republican party officials and big-money donors.


“People think we lose with Cruz, but we don’t lose everything,” said the operative, who opposes Trump and asked to speak anonymously. “He’s still a real Republican. We don’t lose the House and Senate with Cruz. We don’t lose our soul as a party and we can recover in four years and I’m not sure people think we can recover from Donald Trump.”

It doesn't get any more clear than that: the GOPe would rather see Hilary Clinton elected president than Donald Trump.

 

[T.Lex]

Check baby check baby 1-2-3-4

Interesting poll from Pennsylvania, has Trump at 33% and Kasich (yes, the same Kasich) at 30%, well within the MOE of 5.4. This was up to March 20.

Digging into the report, there are some startling revelations:

Registered Republicans do not express positive feelings about all of their candidates.

See - who says polls are unreliable?

The poll was conducted by pre-arranged interview, so the interviewees were basically self-selected. But, that does mean that it was of motivated voters (certain questions reflect that, too). It was also a pretty algorithm-heavy, particularly with a dataset of only ~300 registered Republicans, to extrapolate out across different demographics.

I'm not sure that it is really that close, but it gives Kasich a fighting chance.

 

[T.Lex]

'Olee Carp!

Wisconsin is shaping up weird, too. Latest poll has Cruz, not only within the MOE, but up by a point over Trump. Used calling landlines of 349 Likely Voters, using recorded questions.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Making storing money under the mattress great again.

Trump's investment funds lose money, billionaire unfazed | Reuters

"I put some money with people that are friends," the New York businessman said by phone on Monday, without naming names.

"I have no idea if they are up or down. I just know that they have been very good over a period of time," added Trump, the front-runner for the Republican nomination for the November presidential election.

Representatives for Baron, BlackRock and Paulson declined to comment.