While not exactly a perfect (R)eagan versus (D)ummycrat, it is however definitely NOT a GOPe (R)epublicrat versus a (D)ummycrat. This is a bona fide outsider whom they both hate. You insist on lumping him in with Romney or Dole or whoever and that is self-evidently wrong.
I mean the biggest issues are owned by Trump and NOT supported by any uniparty candidate: Amnesty/Illegals/Wall, Military, Vets, Taxes, Trade, Offshoring/Outsourcing. The most important unique thing he brings is pro-American nationalism, especially with regards to trade and negotiation. Listen, I hate to tell you but none of the others including Cruz would be caught dead running the flag up that pole.
It's fine and dandy to dream of a Constitutionalist hitting the White House, but such a quality really only brings bragging rights to him and personal satisfaction to you because the President no longer gets line items to veto. It didn't even help 200 years ago with the three Democratic-Republican Constitutionalists Jefferson/Madison/Monroe were in power. The FedGov monster just waited them out.
What does an alleged Constitutionalist like Cruz ( I will not agree on that description ) bring to the oval office in 2016? Any executive order he reverses can be redone by the next guy. Any cabinet he rejiggers gets re-rejiggered by the next one. He cannot peel away layers of bureaucracy without Congress and I don't know if you heard but they hate Ted. He gets no bills to veto on constitutional principles, rather it is a laundry list to sign or they accuse you of shutting down the government. The only possible reason anyone would demand a Constitutionalist would be so they personally feel better about their President. The office no longer has much to do with the Constitution.
Now for a Supreme Court Justice or House or Senate member it is critical to get Constitutionalists in there, especially if there is a majority of them. Maybe now you see the ludicrousness of taking these alleged Constitutionalists out of the very offices they hold and can make a difference being in! Taking them out of there and trying to shoehorn them into an office that is mostly decorative is almost inexplicable.
If you have a Trump and Cruz in the toolbox, and two jobs available, President and Justice, I think you Cruzers got your wires crossed on how to use the right tool for the job. Especially if you consider the fact that an actual "Constitutionalist" would voluntarily put handcuffs on himself and follow the spirit and letter of the founders and unilaterally disarm himself against the enemy. That office, in 2016, needs an outside-the-box thinker who is a ruthless strategist and willing to do what is in the best interest of the USA and stop the fleecing of America and her taxpayers.
Getting Trump in there is really about putting some more time on the electoral doomsday clock. If he cannot manage to block Amnesty and get the wall and a moratorium on naturalizations, nothing else will matter anyway. All the Constitutional wishlists become moot. It is over after that and there is no way back without bloodshed. The key fact here is that these very issues were never even going to come up until Trump announced.
You never answered the question though. Who should he have donated to, if anyone, to make it palatable? I calculated the relative donation equivalent and it was literally pocket change to me or you. And I really believe that will be a very lucrative investment in neutrality and good will when it comes time to collect votes in the general.
You never answered the question though. Who should he have donated to, if anyone, to make it palatable?
It doesn't matter that a few hundred thousand dollars is "pocket change" to him. It is still a few hundred thousand dollars. More than the net worth of a significant portion of the American Population.
What would be acceptable? Not donating the the enemies of the Republic.
I have, like many others, succeeded in not donating even pennies to the enemy. But that is because I regard them as such.
He cannot peel away layers of bureaucracy without Congress and I don't know if you heard but they hate Ted.
Funny, but Ted has had that same problem, and isn't liked because he stood his ground. Bloody embarrassing, that, when someone remembers and tries to stick to their campaign promises, it makes everyone else look bad--which is why he isn't liked. He is like the guy who wrecks the grading curve by actually earning his 'A' betting the answers right.
He gets no bills to veto on constitutional principles, rather it is a laundry list to sign or they accuse you of shutting down the government.
So? Most people, aside from the government employees union, would cheer. Enough of that threat. Besides, a 'shutdown' means sending "nonessential" personnel home. Why do we have "nonessential" employees, anyway?
If the voters and the GOP would stand behind what the voters want in the first place, such an impasse could be avoided. Now, they say it doesn't matter because Mr 'pen and phone' will just veto it, anyway.
The only possible reason anyone would demand a Constitutionalist would be so they personally feel better about their President. The office no longer has much to do with the Constitution.
Sadly, the latter justifies the former, in that the office should damned well have more to do with the Constitution, and if the Constitution was followed, I'd feel a heck of a lot better. When you start ignoring the supreme law of the land, things have a tendency to go downhill from there. The GOP majority in Congress could follow that lead. They would have a hard time with that at first, mainly because it would be new to most of them, but I think they'd catch on.
If they don't like it, they can quit and we can get people in office who would. The House (and the Senate) could use a good cleaning.
Now for a Supreme Court Justice or House or Senate member it is critical to get Constitutionalists in there, especially if there is a majority of them. But useless with someone win the White House who is going to pick Justices who aren't, or who will veto submissions by the Congress which are.
It takes two branches, but without leadership from one of them, it's useless.
Add to that that the chief means of destroying industry, economy, education, and a host of other things in America have been Cabinet level Agencies, not the least of which is the DOJ, and that top slot becomes more critical than ever.