Donald Trump Is About To Team Up With Liberals’ Worst Nightmare

uproxx.com ^ | January 18 | KIMBERLY RICCI

[Noumenon]

In the larger scheme of things, liberals and their ilk are just drilling holes in the boat. You might ask them politely to stop. Once.

[varon]

People around here think that because we like her she is the key to victory.

I have a feeling some people around here like her for reasons other than political, know what I mean............

[cookcounty]

Remember 2008, when FReepers were tracking McCain’s plane Anchorage to Dayton on Flight Aware? Scooped all the major press by many hours on the VP selection.

[cookcounty]

Sarah’s a great lady, did a lt of good in her short career as Governor, gets the base excited, ….but she still needs a good speech coach.

[kvanbrunt2]

My sister - a die hard liberal / socialist said she was going to cross over and vote for McCain until he announced Palin as his running mate.

I was going to stay home until McCain chose Palin. >>>
my niece whom i love, told me how stupid palin was after the election was over one day. I asked what did sarah say that was stupid. She couldn’t tell me. ( I think she just saw the basic crap on tv) so i told her to not vote. I don’t think she does now.

[kvanbrunt2]

What excuse do you have forTrump’s blatant corruption? Greasing liberal palms for business purposes is the epitome of what is wrong with our government. Trump is the master at pay for play. Yet he tickles your ears and you look the other way.>>>>
i think Trump played by the rules. there is no rule that says you can’t try to buy a corrupt politician. I do it all the time. It’s called taxes.

[kvanbrunt2]

The US taxpayer was left holding the bag when Trump’s failed schemes blew up in his face, filing bankruptcy 4 times. What a guy!>>>> how so? tax payers? Chapter 11 reorg redoes your debts based on current business reality like if you move your credit card balances to get the no interest for a while.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/21/carly-fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/

[RasterMaster]

Voter turnout happens when there is a Conservative in the race. Every election, conservatives are driven out in the primary and we are left with big goverment Uniparty Progressives who consistently stifle turnout.

[RasterMaster]

There are residual costs that Trumpettes like to gloss over when it comes to his so-called business acumen...

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/la_times_examines_trumps_corporate_welfare.php

[Democratic-Republican]

i think Trump played by the rules. there is no rule that says you can't try to buy a corrupt politician. I do it all the time. It's called taxes.

Hear hear. Bribes which finance the liberal welfare state. And if you think about it, it is exactly the same as forced union dues!

It makes me sick to think what I have literally paid for over many many years.

[Democratic-Republican]

Voter turnout happens when there is a Conservative in the race. Every election, conservatives are driven out in the primary and we are left with big goverment Uniparty Progressives who consistently stifle turnout.

Don't know what you are replying to. I sure wish folks could simply quote exactly what they are on about. Just wrap the quoted comment in tags like this ...

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>comment being quoted</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyway, I agree that Conservatives tend to stay at home when they get a choice between a (D)ummycrat and a (R)epublicrat. But don't you think that evaluation depends on the reference frame? For example, In the so-called "red" states we can see that enthusiasm plain as day ( but we already have those states ). In the so-called "blue" states we cannot say that it helps at all. Therefore, in the purple ones we are simply gambling.

Evidence? At the national level, the more conservative McCain 2008 actually got less votes than Romney 2012 ( +1 million ). However, if you factor in population inflation that becomes less significant and leaves us still wondering if that variable, ideology, was significant at all. Indeterminate in my opinion.

At the electoral ( state ) level, in the twelve swing states the more conservative McCain 2008 picked up zero and Romney 2012 picked up just two, NC and IN. And only in Indiana was there a substantial change of +6% but that runs counter to the theory that (C) was helpful since McCain/Palin is surely more conservative than Romney/Ryan. I don't believe that ideological variable played a role since in North Carolina the needle barely moved at all between the two campaigns. I expect locals in those states could point to something more significant we cannot see out here. But if I had to make a guess I would say that Barry's magical skin color armor was wearing thin.

Obviously I am with you on (C)onservative versus (D)ummycrat and (R)epublicrat. All I am saying is that we must decide whether to run that litmus checklist on every single office, particularly the office of the President where (C) or any ideology has never clearly dominated. We simply have no evidence of this.

If you want we can discuss any of the previous elections though. I'm sure everyone is going to jump on 1980 like Rush always ( mistakenly ) but that one is not a good example.

[Democratic-Republican]

( quoting myself at #151 )

All I am saying is that we must decide whether to run that litmus checklist on every single office ...

Just want to revise and extend that because it looks a little (R)INO'ish.

I'm really focusing on the Office of the President exclusively. I am NOT saying to run moderates in other places because it might seem appropriate to RINOs like Karl Rove, who ran FioRINO and Whitless in California and opposed Angle in Nevada. I'm all for primary challenges to all of them. Definitely go after Mark Kirk and Collins and the rest.

What I'm saying is that people on our side are failing to distinguish one gigantic difference here. The Office of the President is unlike all the others. If a TEA Partier beats Kirk in the primary and loses to some Chicago criminal in the general, we only lose that seat.

However if we run someone doctrinaire (C) for President who fails in the dozen purple States which decide this election then we lose the entire executive branch all at once. The ramifications are tremendous, now more than ever.

Another way of putting it, without mentioning Cruz because it is not about him would be to ask if Scalia or Clarence Thomas or Alan Keyes would be a good choice for the top of the ticket. That clarifies it for me because these are the tippy-top three Constitutionalists on my fast dwindling list. Keyes is my absolute favorite because he tops them all for both Constitution and Federalist Paper total recall ( he is practically a reincarnated James Madison IMHO ), and passes just about everybody short of Pat Robertson and Joel Osteen for religious fluency. Now, would I want them running for President. Nope. If God reached down and made them President it would be fortuitous for America, but they have to win the damned thing first. Besides, people like this are born for a specific job, and two of the three of them are already on that bench.

I'm now convinced, despite years of myself being in the candidate rooting-cheering chorus for guys like Keyes for President, that I miscalculated the dynamics of this electorate and the infrastructure of the parties and such.

So I hope I made clear that this is nothing more than a cold, logical approach to this. And it has nothing to do with running "RINOs" or moderates. Nothing at all. I want the RINOs kicked out of the District of Criminals. But for the Presidency we have to be smart enough to avoid this in the twelve swing states ...

[RasterMaster]

Great assessment...I just don’t see an Obama clone changing anything (self-absorbed, pandering, narcissistic bully). His Twitter fits are more than enough to rule him out even if the miraculous reversal of his past value system have occurred. Then he comes out in favor of ethanol subsidies... Can’t give him a pass on the big government positions he’s held his entire adult life.

[Democratic-Republican]

We'll disagree here obviously.

The thing about arrogance and narcissism is perfectly true compared to say, docile safe-space type-B personalities. But he is alpha type-A.

But you know what? With respect to bravado and the like, Rush is easily 10x more than he is. That is not a criticism, it doesn't bother me, but I understand how it turns people off. They are different though, Trump and Rush that is. Rush is type-A but Trump is alpha type-A.

Ethanol? Couldn't care less right at this moment. I would drink it straight if it got someone elected who could destroy the GOPe. But in all seriousness, this is exactly what is meant by a boutique issue. The house is burning down and people are busy worrying about the refrigerator door left open. We'll get to it later. The ethanol subsidy problem ALREADY exists. It existed yesterday, it will exist tomorrow. And it will still exist no matter who gets elected, including Cruz.

Why do I say this? The answer is simple, and embarrassing to Cruz supporters and especially Ted himself, an alleged Constitutional expert ... The President does NOT get a bill of line items to pick and choose what gets signed and vetoed. This is actually was how it worked in the beginning of the Republic and Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe dutifully vetoed everything that the new Congress was already trying to slip by them. The point is, even *with* the ability to veto line items and send back a note saying This appropriation is not enumerated by the Constitution, the momentum built and Congress learned how to defeat the executive branch and the rest is history. The principle author of the Constitution himself could not prevent the inevitable corruption.

Fast forward to today, and Ted Cruz would have no such luxury. What do his supporters think he could do? Magic? Veto the entire bill? "Shutting down the government" is the result the MSM is looking for to destroy him. Over-ridden by Congress another possibility. There is no mechanism at his disposal to change it. He is stuck with negotiating with a Congress that is intent on vote-buying and will probably despise the man personally. I don't see him fixing it but perhaps someone knows the secret answer that escapes me. Unfortunately his supporters should consider the possibility that it is an empty campaign promise that will be forgotten 15 seconds after the first crisis emerges and changes the subject.

I can only assume that there are multitudes of people that have not the slightest idea of the actual limited powers the President and Congress has. What other explanation is there?

I invite anyone supporting Ted Cruz to layout the actual differences between a President Cruz and Trump. I mean specifically what would happen once they were sworn in. Please enlighten me.

[RasterMaster]

The government gravy train from the transfer of wealth (from the taxpayer to big business) will grow under Trump, just as it had under “his good friends” Obama, Bush, and Clinton.

It is how Trump and his father have made their millions and built their “success”. One reason he supports ethanol subsidies...it’s how he does business. Profits obtained through special favors from his cronies cycles back to DC political allies.

Trump is not going to reduce government spending as it would hit his bottom line. Unless we reduce the size of government, its not going to matter who sits at the head of the table. Future generations will pay for the mistake of electing another narcissistic power hungry thug.

[RasterMaster]

I think when Trump says “the system is broken” he means too many others have learned his “business” methods of bribes and kickbacks, and now has too much competition.

https://youtu.be/UiVwA19DZ6g

Why else would he also come out against businesses bribing foreign officials?

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/439104

http://www.insidecounsel.com/2015/08/17/donald-trump-has-called-the-fcpa-a-horrible-law

[Democratic-Republican]

The government gravy train from the transfer of wealth (from the taxpayer to big business) will grow under Trump, just as it had under "his good friends" Obama, Bush, and Clinton.

It is how Trump and his father have made their millions and built their "success". One reason he supports ethanol subsidies...it's how he does business. Profits obtained through special favors from his cronies cycles back to DC political allies.

Trump is not going to reduce government spending as it would hit his bottom line. Unless we reduce the size of government, its not going to matter who sits at the head of the table. Future generations will pay for the mistake of electing another narcissistic power hungry thug.

The socialism will still be waiting regardless of who gets elected. Now *this* is where I asked the question ... Once they are inaugurated, exactly what would be the differences in how they cut spending, change abortion, gay marriage, and all the boutique issues? There is no button for either man to just press. I implore someone to to explain the magic plan.

But what I really want is for someone to please explain the exact differences they envision between the two candidates as they sit in the big desk. It is simple to list the different campaign promises or lack thereof, and everybody's doing exactly that, but they are meaningless promises. Forget the promises and explain what happens in the oval office. Magic doesn't cut it with me.

I fully agree about government spending, who doesn't? But shouldn't problem number one be trying to address the illegal alien invasion? We will be finished within very few years if nothing gets done, so what does any other issue really matter?

[RasterMaster]

All of the issues matter. Yes immigration, but more than that enforcement. We have laws already on the books. Where has it got us?

We need someone who knows the Constitution in order to get back to where we should be. For Trump, it will be an obstacle, just like Obama.

[Democratic-Republican]

All of the issues matter. Yes immigration, but more than that enforcement. We have laws already on the books. Where has it got us?

Only one issue matters - placing a tourniquet on the invasion. Do you understand what it will mean when the (D)ummycrats increase their headstart from 250 electoral votes to 270? It means that all future elections are moot. Fake. Kaput. Kabuki theater. Finished before they ever start. Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Russia. Ad Nauseum.

If you fix all the problems on your list, abortion, gay marriage, spending, subsidies, etc, then they get reversed as soon as the take over the government again. All that work was for nothing. The enemy is playing for keeps. You just want to just play.

We need someone who knows the Constitution in order to get back to where we should be. For Trump, it will be an obstacle, just like Obama.

I know the Constitution, what does Cruz know that I don't? I'm talking about the solutions that you believe Cruz has. What does a Constitutionalist as President do differently than someone else you consider a non-Constitutionalist?

BTW, a President who is a pure Madisonian would in theory be self-handcuffed and never even consider executive orders, bully pulpit, arm-twisting, populist-pressure and a variety of other things. The Presidency was designed to be a benign caretaker in most cases save for war. But I'll play dumb and await enlightenment as to just what it is that I missed.

We're actually getting to the root of the problem here. I would classify the bulk of this as wishful thinking. Too much faith and expectation is vested in that Office. That in itself is anti-Constitutional. So we have the spectacle of Cruz supporters spouting Constitutionalism demanding a Constitutionalist as President to face down the institutionalized anti-Constitutionalism presumably by some other form of anti-Constitutionalism.

Here's my take on the Cruz versus Trump situation ... If saving America is compared to the Third Crusade ... then doctrinaire (C) Cruz supporters have convinced themselves that the smart way to defeat the enemy is to send in the Pope, rather than Richard the Lionheart!