Replies

Each new grotesquerie by Trump energizes his supporters to excuse it often with the argument of electability. Others argue that he will be effective in governance and compare him to Rinos but rarely compare him to Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz has proven his constitutional bona fides he proved it on his feet all night long in front of the Senate and in front of millions of Americans that he will fight the fight. We have every reason to believe that Cruz will fight on behalf of consistent conservative principles. We have no reason to believe that Trump will have any consistent conservative philosophy even if elected. His biography screams otherwise, that he will govern ad hoc as an ego trip.

There is one issue on which Trump has a slight edge, that issue is more than dominant it is decisive: immigration.

If immigration continues, even without amnesty, the Republicans will not win another election in my lifetime and probably for a whole generation after that. That is because the Democrats, facilitated often by the courts, are jiggering the election laws and furnishing illegal immigrants with drivers licenses with which they will gain entry into the polling booths. That is going on without amnesty, with amnesty there simply is no hope.

No hope for the country, not just for a conservative country but no hope for a nation that resembles a nation in which I grew up or a nation which is not simply absorbed into a polyglot, amorphous global village very likely severely regimented and certainly much poorer. We might become Muslim, we might become the victims of the Chinese, we might find ourselves regimented by the environmentalists, or a new force might emerge but one thing is clear, an America faithful to the Bill of Rights and to its Constitution will simply not survive. Without a check on immigration there can be no effective national defense, no hope of bringing the budget under control to avoid a calamity, no national consensus to oppose radical Islam or aggressive Chinese expansionism. There will be no sense of nation.

I give Trump the edge on immigration over Ted Cruz, but just a small edge because Trump can't be trusted, Trump is not motivated by conservative values, he will not seek to curb immigration to protect conservatism or even to protect the Constitution, he will do it because he thinks it makes economic sense. If we have to choose between the two, I believe Cruz will fight to protect the Constitution. But Cruz is not right on the visas and he has not been strong enough on deportation.

I do not fault people for choosing Trump for his stance on immigration (although I do believe they are engaging in a lot of wishful thinking concerning his stance), I do fault conservatives who are willfully blind to the man's failings.

Even economic sense can be a powerful lever to the good if it is accompanied by good reason.

Even economic sense can be a powerful lever to the good if it is accompanied by good reasonING.

For weeks I have enjoyed Trump’s savaging the enemedia/Rat complex. As I have said all along, we conservatives owe him a debt of gratitude for doing so. I have never misconstrued DT for conservative. Tonight it occurs to me one aspect of Trump that I have heard about again and again but it never really connected. People go to him. They are summoned or they ask for a “meeting”. When on Active Duty in Panama following Just Cause I met a number of Panamanians who had “met with” Noriega. I think it is a very similar thing. I suspect Trump is not in it so much for the money but he wants to be “the guy”. Apparently he is a charming person and I recall even Beck admitted on day one he went out of his way to be hospitable.

I said weeks ago that as much as we may want a Constitutional conservative the fact is the precedents the Klown has set mean whoever is next is going to be a tyrant. It will just be too easy. The choice we are going to face in 2016 is not going to be right vs left or R vs D or anything else. It is going to be Trump or Hillary. We all know what Hillary will do with power. With DT we just can’t be sure.

Sure Trump will enjoy making the powerful come kiss his ring. One can hope that the cronyism will be less than it has been. Hillary will force everyone to lick her boot. No one really “knows” what the future holds but if you hang around pool halls I suspect you get pretty good at knowing what balls are gonna drop. Those of us who have been trying to pay close attention for decades I think can get a sense of things. Not like Barone, based on deep knowledge of demographics, but just a sense of what can happen. If the Rats were gonna dump Hillary she would be wearing an orange jumpsuit. Who knows, did the GOPee piss of Trump? Whatever, he is sure raining on their parade.

As for restoring the Constitution, we are probably gonna have to actually pick up a rifle and fight to do that. I just don’t see a non violent path to that anymore.

Nathan, do you agree with the Corker Bill? I don’t. By what stretch of the imagination was it reasoned to make it harder to stop Obama’s Iran deal.

Guess who voted for it.

Do you think we need to add 250,000 H1-B visas slots per year? We’ve got between 40 and 90 million able bodied people out of work.

Guess who supports this.

Did you agree with the need for a new TPP trade legislation? We can’t seem to lose jobs fast enough, so now they want to sign more agreements that will undermine still more jobs.

Guess who voted for support legislation for this?

Cruz is not quite the pristine guy folks think he is.

I try to hold back, but I’m tired of hearing what a bad guy Trump is, while folks champion the perfect Cruz.

I sure don’t approve of that Corker bill. I doubt you do either. To me, that betrays every other Conservative principle, making it easier for Obama to negotiate Iran to have nuclear weapons.

What is the president’s number one job? Isn’t that making our nation safe? Are we more safe with a nuclear Iran?

Even Trump know this was wrong. Did Cruz? No.

Which one is the real Conservative?

I was tired last night. I gave you a response to this. It wasn't the response you deserved. You raised some decent points, and I should address them. As I do, I want you to understand I know this will be read by others. My comments are not intended to be solely to you, or even convicting of you. I will say some things that are addressed as if to a group of people, that may not apply to you at all. Anyone reading this should take note of that as well.

Each new grotesquerie by Trump energizes his supporters to excuse it often with the argument of electability.

One sentence. So many thoughts in response. (see why I didn't go into this last night).

At the end of the day, I agree with this. When I read it what blared out to me was the grotesqueries. How can folks do that? Electability is crucial, but what about character, past deeds, things that would normally turn Conservatives against a guy. And if I am pondering this issue, I know many others are.

Blatantly... that's how I would term it. I know this is blatantly going to remind folks of the blind trust people put in Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Nothing that was stated about these men caused their followers to doubt them. We were astonished to watch as revelation after revelation came out. Surely this will do it. Okay, this will. Well this just has to. Nothing phased them. Those that dislike Trump are certain to recognize this same trait in Trump supporters. Is that what is going on here?

What was the nature of the revelations about Bill Clinton? He was strongly suspected of having committed crimes. He was a married man with a young daughter who was known to be a massive womanizer. There were issues of rape. He did at least part of this by abusing his power over the state troopers assigned to him. People were mysteriously dying around him. He left a trail of dead bodies and ruined lives behind him. His closest associates were often future ruined people, closely associated with things he had participated in. He was a known Marxist, and there were serious quesitons about his connected family members, and his past. Where was his money coming from as a youth? How was he able to attend the universities he did? How did he travel across Europe and Russia at a time when the Cold War was raging? These are quetions of a criminal nature. They are questions that raise the issue of espionage or subterfuge.

What was the nature of the revelations about Obama? Here was a person that couldn't provide a document that every one of us has to at some point, a valid birth certificate. He is a person that went by different names. He was a guy that had been raised by people having serious disagreements with the United States and the West. He attended a school in Indonesia. By some accounts he needed to be a citizen of that nation to do so. Did he reounce his U. S. Citizenship to do so? Here was a guy that attended some of our nation's top education institutions. Who paid for it? His mom couldn't. He was a guy that never applied himself, but at Harvard he was suddenly the smartest guy around. Here was a young Black man, no money, no connections that come with wealth, no "coolness" factor as it relates the to Ivy League crowd, and all of a sudden he's the smartest most popular guy around. He was a guy that didn't apply himself in high school. Didn't apply himself as Illinois Senator. Didn't apply hmself as a U. S. Senator, but we're supposed to believe he did apply himself at Harvard. Women who knew him as a youth say he didn't appear to be interested in women. Later we find that he may have been frequenting homosexual bath houses. Another words, there were some very serious issues surrounding this guy. Who was he? Where did he come fromt? How did he attain the positions he did? How could he do next to nothing, and get into Harvard, the Illinois Senate, and the Senate of the United States? Here was a guy that had writen something to the effect, (paraphrased), "If it comes to a battle between the West and Islam, I will stand with Islam."

Moving on to Trump. What are the nature of the revelations regarding him? I would submit his childhood was normal enough. His progression through college was uneventful. His entrance and progression through the family business was not atypical for the family he grew up in. His father brought him into the family busienss. He excelled. His progression through his career was normal. His life up until this day, is a normal example of what someone's life should be, if born to wealth and applying themself. Compare this to Clinton and Obama. The differences are staggering. Compare the things we don't like about him. He said the wrong things. He hung out with the wrong people. He donated to people we don't like. He voiced support for them. Notice anything missing here? There is no crime. There is no question where his funding came from. There is no question of whether he loves the nation or not. There is no question of him being a devout Marxist or an Islamic adherent. There are no questions of him raping women. There are no issues with people dying around him. There are no questions about where his money came from, to do the things he did. He's a citizen. He didn't travel across Europe and Russia during the cold war. He wasn't studying at the feet of Marxists. He had associations with people who were Marxists, but he wasn't spewing Marxist ideology. No trail of ruinded people to ponder. No dead bodies to ponder. No dectectives hired to check out his spouse or shut down women who were abused by him. He lost money. He made oodles of it. He was brash. He learned how to play the real-estate mogul game. He's a straight shooter. He won't take any lip without paying in return with rich dividends. He has no use for abusive game playing members of the press.

So when people do a dump on Trump, folks aren't having to dismiss deaths, rapes, criminal acts, treason, Islamic harmony, citizenship issues, shadow support people or groups, a trail of destruction, or adherence to prosteletising of devout Marxism.

What Bill Clinton and Barack Obama spouted as if professors, Donald Trump at worst had only shaken hands with people who did. He had donated to some of them as well. Did that mean he bought in? How could it? He donated massive sums to the espousers of Conservatism too. A man all-in with regard to Leftists, only donates to Leftists. If he donates to Conservatives too, there's something else going on besides an ideological dyamic.

Folks who support Trump have a pretty good understanding of what I have explained above. Either that or they simply instinctively know that what Trump is charged with is in no way comparable to what Clinton and Obama were/are.

They don't buy into the trash Trump campaign. They recognize a guy that was a die-hard dedicated businessman. They recognize a man working the room. They understand that he built networking connections. They understand how the business commuhity operates. They don't particularly like that Trump gave Clinton money, but they understand him giving her money. They don't like him using Sharpton to get to Don King, but they understand him using Sharpton to get to Don King.

What did Trump have to gain by tapping Don King's abilities? He stood to gain tens of millions of dollars off of King's abilities. He would arrange very lucritive boxing matches. He would attract people to his hotels. He would expand the brand.

Folks, the level of things Trump did that you don't like, is somewhat lackluster and vapid in the overall scheme of things.

Does anyone remember back to the 2012 election cycle. We had one after another Conservative picked off by the press and the GOPe favorites. We are tired of that tactic. We simply are not going to stand for it any longer. As long as Trump is hawking Conservative tenets, we're going to reward him with our support.

Others argue that he will be effective in governance and compare him to Rinos but rarely compare him to Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz has proven his constitutional bona fides he proved it on his feet all night long in front of the Senate and in front of millions of Americans that he will fight the fight. We have every reason to believe that Cruz will fight on behalf of consistent conservative principles.

Like voting to make it almost a certain impossibility to deny Iran nuclear weapons and $150 billion dollars in impounded funds to support terrorists in the West.

Not buying it.

We have no reason to believe that Trump will have any consistent conservative philosophy even if elected. His biography screams otherwise, that he will govern ad hoc as an ego trip.

Would that be a Medicare Part D ego trip?
Would it be a no child left behind ego trip?
Would that be an grant them amnesty no matter what my constituency thinks ego trip?
Would it be I'll let policies stand so we will add almost no new jobs during my administration ego trip? (Over 20 million less than the prior 40 year average [based on normal percentages] )
Would it be an ego trip that saw him take a pass on leading his own party in Congress to take measures to ward off an economic catastophy?
Would it be a doubling of the national debt in eight years ego trip?
Would it be a yes I'll vote for that so Iran can have nuclear arms ego trip?
Would it be a yes I'll vote for that so Iran will have $150 billion dollars to fund terrorism in the West ego trip?

There is one issue on which Trump has a slight edge, that issue is more than dominant it is decisive: immigration.

Not to be insulting, but I don't think you mean this. Look at those words in red above. You can't really mean this. You don't trust him. And then there is biography, his biography...

If immigration continues, even without amnesty, the Republicans will not win another election in my lifetime and probably for a whole generation after that. That is because the Democrats, facilitated often by the courts, are jiggering the election laws and furnishing illegal immigrants with drivers licenses with which they will gain entry into the polling booths. That is going on without amnesty, with amnesty there simply is no hope.

I agree. And as I read this paragraph and reread it several times, I realized that there is only one guy that is bigger than life this election. That is the type of man that will have to confront Democrat (and I might just as well get it out there, REPUBLICAN and Judicial) skullduggery. He is the only guy that can go on camera and convince people that what he is saying is true, with regard to skullduggery. I do believe others could address it, but they simply do not have Trump's ability to reach through the camera and shake sense into people. And once he has done it, they think, "Oh yeah." and not "Who does he think he is?" I'm sorry, but the latter is how folks would react to most of our candidates, even if the candidate was right. Not with Trump.

No hope for the country, not just for a conservative country but no hope for a nation that resembles a nation in which I grew up or a nation which is not simply absorbed into a polyglot, amorphous global village very likely severely regimented and certainly much poorer. We might become Muslim, we might become the victims of the Chinese, we might find ourselves regimented by the environmentalists, or a new force might emerge but one thing is clear, an America faithful to the Bill of Rights and to its Constitution will simply not survive. Without a check on immigration there can be no effective national defense, no hope of bringing the budget under control to avoid a calamity, no national consensus to oppose radical Islam or aggressive Chinese expansionism. There will be no sense of nation.

Yep. This is the message I've been trying to deliver since the mid 1990s. People couldn't see it then. They are barely able to today. It's so troubling, that people reflexively deny to themselves it could be that bad. Sadly, it is.

I give Trump the edge on immigration over Ted Cruz, but just a small edge because Trump can't be trusted, Trump is not motivated by conservative values, he will not seek to curb immigration to protect conservatism or even to protect the Constitution, he will do it because he thinks it makes economic sense.

I wouldn't reference it in economic terms, although I think that plays in. I think he has a sense of right and wrong, and this just apeals to his perception that it is an incredibly wrong thing to allow. I acknowledge he has addressed the cost of it, so I'm not in total disagreement with you. Your emphasis may be more accurate than mine.

If we have to choose between the two, I believe Cruz will fight to protect the Constitution. But Cruz is not right on the visas and he has not been strong enough on deportation.

While I don't find myself inclined to disagree enough to argue the point, I am not convinced that Cruz is as intuitive toward doing the right thing as I would desire. You and I have discused three important issues on this thread. One of them is a whopper. The other two are problematic as well. While Cruz does have some aspects that a greatly appreciate, he is not without some problems.

I do not fault people for choosing Trump for his stance on immigration (although I do believe they are engaging in a lot of wishful thinking concerning his stance), I do fault conservatives who are willfully blind to the man's failings.

As I said, that one issue, Trump hasn't done anything that is more than 5% as bad.