NOTE: Previously I suggested Dennis Prager as part of this group. I actually meant Mike Gallagher. From what I have heard, Prager is decidedly anti-Clinton and not a Trump apologist. My apologies…
Carl von Clausewitz famously said “War is the continuation of politics by other means”. He is of course right. But it’s also true that politics is war by other means.
Frankly, I’m tired of listening to guys like Sean Hannity, Dennis Prager, Herman Cain and others suggest that I’m not a real conservative or that I must be a closet Hillary supporter or something of that ilk because I do not support Donald Trump for president. (Which probably explains why I listen to a LOT more sports talk radio these days…) These paragons of conservatism gripe “Why aren’t they focusing their attention on Hillary?” or “Why haven’t you been focusing this much energy on President Obama?” Well, the fact is, since my first blogposts seven years ago: Racism: America’s Original Sin and The Gift of Freedom, I have done little else than write about the perils of the cancer of liberalism, tried to highlight the irrefutable fact that free markets, individual freedom and limited government are the keys to prosperity, and argue that our Constitution is the greatest document in human history.
Now I don’t harbor the conceit that Hannity, Cain or any of the others are actually talking about me specifically. They don’t know me and I’ve no idea if they’ve ever even read my blog. But there are no doubt more than a few conservatives who have spent years listening to the talking heads on “conservative radio” opining that if we only had a real conservative carrying the banner for the GOP then we’d have a chance to save the nation, who are now stunned to watch as those same talking heads have swooned like teenage girls as they fawn over Donald Trump. And now they lecture us that we’re somehow traitors to the conservative cause because we don’t become sycophants too?
The reality is, standing for conservative principals applies whether a candidate is in the Democrat or the Republican Party. Principals don’t bend just because the liberal candidate is on your side of the isle. That’s why I supported Christine O’Donnell over RINO Mike Castle. Sure, she may have been a flawed candidate, but she was an actual conservative rather than being part of the squish GOP establishment that has proven itself to be all about power and privilege – its own – as opposed to standing for limited government and actually trying to stop Barack Obama.
So today we find ourselves subjected to tirades that the #nevertrump movement – of which I’m not a member – and conservatives who are trying to figure out how to push an illiberal liberal from the perch the media anointed him with – via $2 billion in fawning coverage – atop the GOP are somehow not true conservatives at all but are really Hillary supporters. Somehow if we still fight, even if it’s only for the flicker of hope that somehow Trump will implode or the convention will somehow figure out how to nominate someone else, we are somehow turncoats who were never believers in the first place.
That is, frankly, bullshit. It’s not that we don’t have disdain for fascist Barack Obama’s extra constitutional progressive policies. It’s not that we don’t despair at the thought of a vain liberal, crony capitalist opportunist sitting in the White House. We do. But the point is, we don’t want a vain liberal, crony capitalist opportunist running for president under the banner of the party that claims to represent conservatism and limited government. While I agree that a President Hillary Clinton – or Bernie Sanders or Pocahontas Warren – would be a disaster for freedom and prosperity that doesn’t mean that I have to support Donald Trump as the savior. The reality is, Donald Trump is every bit as much a big government crony capitalist as Clinton is. Well, maybe he’s a bit less of one, but at least Clinton only whined about the “vast right wing conspiracy” where as Trump has actually suggested that Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post as a tax dodge with the implicit threat that once in office he will use the mechanisms of government to punish Bezos and Amazon. Maybe he’s right about Bezos, but his threat, along with a similar approach to dealing with Ford and Carrier certainly suggests that a President Trump won’t be much of a free market and limited government guy.
Which brings us back to the point… conservatives are conservatives because they are (generally) conservative and believe in things like limited government, individual freedom and free markets. Conservative does not equal Republican, particularly when the Republican banner is being carried by a guy who is anathema to all of those things. That does not mean that I won’t vote for or even argue for Trump against Clinton in the general. I may do both, albeit reluctantly, but we’re not there yet. Strange things can happen… I remember shaking hands with Gary Hart in Florida a few months before he shot himself in the political head when he invited reporters to follow him, and they did.
Until Donald Trump is absolutely the only real option for keeping Hillary Clinton out of the White House, he will not get my support and I will continue to do what I can to highlight the fact that he is no conservative savior, no conservative and no savior at all. He is a petty, spiteful, manipulative crony capitalist narcissist who would continue Barack Obama’s assault on the Constitution. Maybe it will be all for naught and maybe I’ll end up pulling the lever for him in the general as a nod to the reality that the other crony capitalist in the race would be even worse, but don’t accuse me of being a closet liberal because I don’t rejoice that bootlickers like Hannity et al have turned the party of Abraham Lincoln into the party of Bozo the Clown.
See author page
@Redteam:
“‘Most votes” does not necessarily equate to a “majority of votes.”
In Trump’s case, it amounts only to a plurality of votes, not a majority.
Still, the system was “rigged” so as to give him a majority of delegates, a majority he simply did not earn in terms of votes. The system was rigged so that it effectively worked in favor of Donald Trump. Even Rush Limbaugh pointed this out as I recall.
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.:
Really? He never got into the primaries? What you’re saying is, he got in, but very early he figured out not too many people were going to vote for him, so he got back out. Why should anyone now vote for someone that withdrew his own name from the contest?
A few military names? Apparently they don’t consider themselves as the answer to a maiden’s prayer, they haven’t come out and said they are the anointed. If a huge number of the public thought they were good candidates, they probably would have been listed on some ballots. The voters, that voted, have spoken. Those that didn’t don’t give a damn.
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.:
What system of voting in the US requires a ‘majority of votes’? Has that ever been a requirement anywhere? I’m not sure how many voters there are in the US, but I’d guess over 200 million. So you’re saying anyone listed on a ballot should have to have over a hundred million votes? I don’t know of any system where a majority of voters is required.
I find that quite humorous as I’m sure you recall early int the process when Trump was getting the most votes, but Cruz was getting the most delegates and everyone was saying that was because Cruz was a politician and knew how the system was setup so that he could get the delegates without getting the votes. So if the system was ‘rigged’ as you say, it was against Trump getting the nomination, now you come in at the last minute, after the votes have been cast and counted and want to change the system and say all the people that voted for Trump shouldn’t have their votes counted, only the ones that voted for others was important. Did you move here recently from Cuba or Russia? They have voting systems like you’re touting.
@Redteam:
I appreciate the fact that you strongly support Donald Trump.
But we are also faced with the fact that the system, as it is “working,” is giving the American voters in the fall a choice between two nominees with the highest negative ratings in history between them. Whichever wins will have merely proven that he is the least undesirable candidate.
Many, many Republican voters would appreciate a wider choice.
I concede that more people should participate in the primary and caucus process. But that does not alter the situation in which the nation now finds itself. It is the responsibility of the duly elected delegates to now decide the platform and nominee of the Party. If they do not have the legal right to do so, what are you so worried and upset about?
Even Ted Cruz has said that he expects that the delegates will nominate Donald Trump. Frankly, so do I. But that does not gainsay what I and others are advocating to save the nation from this dilemma which many Americans find very concerning.
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.:
Doesn’t it still allow crossovers to vote for the weakest Dimocrat so that the Dimocrat can lose in November? Goose: Gander remember?
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.:
I don’t appreciate you jumping to that conclusion. If you had been on this site more than two days, you would know that’s not true.
First, the system is working as ‘the system’ has worked since the early 1800’s. The popularity of the two finalists has always been a problem. No one listened to me when McCain and Romney, two very liberal RINO’s were selected to run with the result being the largest two disasters in the history of the nation. That being the two times Obama was elected. No matter who gets elected in November, neither of them can approach the total ineptness we have had in the office for the last 8 years. If the country can survive a non citizen being president for 8 years, Clinton or Trump should be a cake walk.
Your proposal, to ignore the winner as a result of the primaries would be a much larger disaster to the American process. You’re saying that the two parties should conduct primaries and if the right people don’t win, the voters should be ignored and just put in whoever the ‘rulers’ of the party would rather have. Yes, that would be great for our democratic Republic, wouldn’t it? I think that comes closer to the Dictator type government. Did you recently move to the US from a dictatorship?
But in the American system, the delegates are selected and vote according to the platform in effect when they are selected. They then follow that platform and vote for the nominee according to the rules in existence. After the nominee is selected, then it is the job of the delegates to determine the platform ‘for the next election’. They don’t get to change the rules ‘first’. This is the platform they are going to be operating under for the next 4 years and the nominee gets to have an input. I think you are confused bout the American system. I’ll agree that we don’t operate as a dictatorship and shouldn’t unless we first change the constitution.
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.:
Probably a majority of Americans don’t even know we’re having an election this year.
@Redteam: @Redteam:
I was speaking of changes that ought to be made in the future. Both parties would be better off with closed primaries, so that the nominees selected would represent the views of the party itself — not those of an opposing party or independents.
That is why we have distinct political parties in the first place — so that diverse contending political philosophies may be represented to the voters in the Republic..
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.:
So when you said this, you were talking about the 2020 election? How do you know Trump will even be the nom in 2020. No, I believe you were talking about changing the results of ‘this’ primary and substituting someone for Trump, but leaving Clinton in place.
As I said. You are bent out of shape over me ‘supporting’ Trump. I have clearly said since Trump entered the race that he was not my first choice and that I would vote for who the party nominated, as long as they were eligible (Cruz, Rubio, Jindal not eligible) I did NOT vote for Trump in the Louisiana primary. Since he is obviously now the Republican nominee, I will vote for him. I can think of many persons that would clearly be worse than Trump but two of them I will name for you: Clinton, Sanders. I would say that Clinton is a real POS, but she is not up to that standard.
@Redteam:
If you look at my post 58, it is obvious I am talking about changes that should be made to the rules for primaries and caucuses in the future. Look at the wording.
But you are correct in saying that I am advocating the the delegates to this 2016 convention should change the rules — not for the primaries and caucuses that have already taken place, but for the delegates that are bound on the first ballot.
If I have improperly alleged that you are a Trump supporter, I apologize. Yet, in the preceding post, you affirm that since Trump “is obviously now the Republican nominee, [you] will vote for him.” I presume that makes you his supporter.
But Donald Trump is NOT the nominee of the GOP. He has been called the “presumptive” nominee, since he is anticipated to have 1,237 delegates voting for him on the first ballot. But he will not be the nominee until, and unless, that many delegates actually vote for him on some ballot.
Contrary to your claim that the rules cannot be changed for the 2016 convention, one of the members of the rules committee, Curly Haugland, has published a booklet, which he has given to every delegate to the convention, that argues that the present rules do not bind any delegates, pledged or not, on the first ballot. He argues that the rules already contain a conscience clause that frees any delegate on the first ballot. Moreover, the delegates to the convention can change any rules they wish regarding balloting, including rule 16, which pertains to pledged delegates. They could be unbound if the rules committee so decides. It might take a vote of all the delegates. I don’t know. But it can be done.
Do you honestly think that, should Donald Trump actually do what he said he could do, and shoot someone down in public, that the convention would still be bound to nominate him — simply because he has 1237 bound delegates? Do you think that the Democrat Party would be bound to nominate Hillary, were she indicted the day before the convention voted on her nomination?
Voters may vote, but it is the delegates who control their own convention. They can set aside any rule they wish. You may not think this is the American way, or democratic, but that is how political parties actually work. In fact, one of the ways that allegedly “bound” delegates never get to vote is if their delegation is challenged before they are seated. That has happened before and it can happen again. In fact, one of the possible bases for such a challenge has been rumored to be the fact of “winner-take-all” state rules.
That is why, not only I, but many others are urging the delegates to use their legal right to deny Trump the nomination by freeing the delegates on the first ballot. As you may know, a petition is being circulated on RedState to that effect.
Unless, and until, Donald Trump is actually nominated by the GOP convention in Cleveland starting July 18, it remains fair game to encourage the delegates to pick another nominee. Recall that many times in the past dozens of ballots were taken before a relatively unknown nominee emerged. According to a poll just released by Data Targeting, some 55% of voters would like to choose someone for president other than either Trump or Clinton. I am one of them.
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.-:
You’re saying they should change the rules in the middle of the game. 4 years ago, when they went to a convention, the delegates at that convention put together the rules for the selection of a nominee for THIS year. Those rules stay in place UNTIL the nominee has been chosen. Then the new nominee and the elected delegates write/revise the rules for selecting delegates and nominees for the NEXT convention.
Just curious, if your candidate were WAY ahead, playing by the rules and they suddenly decided to ‘change’ the rules to exclude YOUR candidate from the process, would you be okay with that? Trump is where he is with the process that was agreed upon 4 years ago. Just because some losers don’t like how it’s going, they want to change the process. Why would anyone vote in that kind of process where it is known ahead of time that ‘SOMEONE’ could just change the rules and declare their candidate the winner, even if he hadn’t been in the contest. That sound kinda like a dictatorship, or a democratic process?
I’m not talking about what some idiot is ‘arguing’, I’m talking about following the rules, not changing the interpretation. So Curly is a believer in a dictatorship. Well, I won’t borrow a loser’s argument. I’ll just let Curly argue what he wants then he can go on back to Cuba, he’d fit right in there.
I don’t ‘claim’ anything. The rules are what they are and they say they can’t be changed until after a nominee is chosen.
Are you a complete idiot? Have you ever heard of a metaphor? You are lowering the value of your Ph D more every time you open your mouth. Trump was simply saying that if he picked out anyone in Times Square, they wouldn’t be someone that is voting for him.
I would have thought you would know when to stop digging. Yes, if they were there to vote and an Atomic bomb exploded over their heads, they would not be required to stay there and vote. But I’ll ask you again, do you think it’s okay to change the rules in the middle of any game. Do you think they should be able to count a touchdown as only 5 points if counting it as 6 would tie the score? And they only decide that during the last drive of the game? You would be okay with that?
Why would I know or care what a bunch of frigging morons at RedState is doing? I’m gonna stick with the Democratic process and play by the rules. Do I like all the candidates that are running, no but I got my vote and others got their’s and that’s who should be following the rules.
Now i’ve got you figured out. You’re a Bernie fan and you’re scared sh*tless that Trump is going to beat him so you want them to violate any and all rules of democracy so that your socialist buddy can have a shot at it. Well suppose after they removed Trump and someone thought your buddy might win, they took him off the ballot also, then when it looked as if Hillary would then prevail, they decided to remove her and put up Nancy Pelosi? Wouldn’t you be thrilled. No wait. then since they had removed Trump and Bernie and Hillary, then Fidel Castro saw where he would have a clear shot, so they put him up. Gee, when there are no rules, we can do just anything we want to. We don’t even need voters that way, we just declare a president by acclamation then decide to go ahead and change his title to King, or dictator. Keep on using that PhD and you can change the world.
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.:
You made your point, you’re a Bernie fan. Alrighty….
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.:
The other candidates accepted the primary election system, including that of “winner take all” (a system I do not approve of, but then I don’t make the rules). I also don’t approve of state caucuses and I would rather all states hold polls instead of caucuses. (But, again, I don’t make the rules.) Would you have us believe that you would be just as upset at the candidate of your choice winning in such a manner? No, never-mind answering my question. . You have already made it clear you don’t care what the voters want. Your message was written exactly as we should expect from an establishment GOPer.
You don’t know me jackass. I am neither moved by your condescending trolling, or your pretentious thinking that merely placing a “PH.D” after your name impresses us.
That’s the second time you asked that in your single post to me. Are you having some kind of inferiority complex? Do you think your opinion is so unimportant, or your posts are so boring, that FA readers aren’t hanging on your every word?
So what? ‘Walker didn’t get the votes, your military people didn’t run. The election is not going as you would have it. Boo-hoo.’ Welcome to the way many conservatives have felt since Ronald Reagan left office and the GOPe took over the party leadership.
Everyone was fine with the system until Trump won. The other candidates knew the game. Had Cruz or any of the other candidates performed like Trump did, they would be in the situation he is. They didn’t. Get over it.
@Redteam:
Exactly. This guy shows up out of the blue, tells us he’s has a doctorate, he’s been here for only a few days, and he thinks that makes him an expert on what we think. What a putz. I’ll speculate that his doctorate thesis is on how to live in his parents basement.
He’s either a Bernie supporter or a disgruntled Kasich follower. Either way, he can go play doctor with himself.
@Redteam:
It is becoming clear that you are simply no longer following the logic of the argument, nor what many people familiar with the way the GOP rules work know about what is possible. It is well known that, although the delegates may be bound on the first ballot, they are free to vote on the rules binding THIS convention. That is why many Trump-bound delegates, who are actually Cruz supporters, could alter the course of the convention — if enough of them chose to do so. I suggest you read the discussion on other threads.
I have no interest in arguing with you indefinitely about something you clearly do not understand. I would hope that most objective readers of this thread know that 538’s Nate Silver knows how the convention actually works. Here is what he says: ” Trump isn’t totally safe even if he locks up 1,237 delegates by the time the final Republicans vote. The delegates have a lot of power, both on the convention floor and in the various rules and credentials committees that will begin meeting before the convention officially begins. If they wanted to, the delegates could deploy a “nuclear option” on Trump and vote to unbind themselves on the first ballot….” You may find this at
Beyond this, you will be arguing for the sake of argument … and I will allow you to do so by yourself.
@Ditto:
Get this through your head; Trump has not won, yet. He has a plurality of the delegates, not a majority.
Seems I recall how Trump was whining about how the system was “rigged” when he did not take a majority of the delegates in states where he only took a plurality of the votes, even threatening to sue. Yet, in “winner take all” states like Florida, he was totally happy with the outcome of the delegate allocation.
And perhaps you can point me to another election where people like you were whining about a system that you clearly don’t understand how it works?
If the voters truly had a voice, and you seem to think they should (and they should) there would be no open primaries (which would have hurt Trump) and there would be no “winner take all” states in delegate allocation. But you’re perfectly happy with the system as it is thinking it will turn your chosen candidate’s plurality into a majority.
@Dennis Bonnette, PhonyDoc.:
You have successfully continued to duck the question I asked you several times. Are you for changing the rules in the middle of the game? Frankly I don’t give a damn if you answer or not, this is probably the only thread you will comment on, it’s obvious you’ve shown up in the employ of Hillarys PAC which was set up exclusively to hire trollers for the rapist’s wife, who has attempted, very unsuccessfully to cover for him for years. So go play with your boyfriend and leave us alone. What is a Bonnette, is that like a little bone?
@Redteam:
The game hasn’t even started yet, much less be in the middle of it. If you want so desperately to keep the rules the same, perhaps you should have spent the time, energy and money to run for National Delegate and get yourself appointed to the Rules Committee. Instead, you’ll just continue to spew your excuses for Trump all the while denying your support for him.
I see you have taken to sinking to new lows, RT.
@retire05:
Just responding in kind to those that come here to play games. Trying to get down to the level of those that don’t want to play by the rules.
Did I miss something? Isn’t there a process of nominee selection going on? Was there or was there not a set of rules in place to govern the process? Until the nominee is selected, those rules apply. After the nominee is selected for this race, then the selected delegates decide on the rules for the next event, 4 years in the future.
Just because your ‘anointed’ one isn’t leading in the process is no reason to ‘change the rules’ prior to this game ending.
desperately? The only desperate people I see responding are those that are losing. Can you honestly say that if Cruz were in the lead, you would be in favor of a rule change that would put someone else in the lead? Or would you think the game should be played by the rules that were in place when the game started?
According to you and PhonyDoc, what good would that have done if the rules can be changed by anyone in the middle of the game? Would you appoint the person that was in charge of this ‘in the middle of the game’ rules change as a dictator? or would King fit better?
The rules were set 4 years ago, let’s play by the rules. If we don’t like the outcome, then change the rules for the next game before it starts.
@Redteam:
Had not the Republican Party in its 2012 convention approved bylaws that allow the delegates to change the ballot rules here in 2016, no changes could now be made. Clearly, you misunderstand, not only the reason why it is legally possible to change the rules for delegates on the first ballot, but also the simple fact that the ongoing Party rules, approved in 2012, provide for just such changes. So, please stop saying that I am trying to change the rules of the last convention. Use some simple logic.
I regret that you are now resorting to infantile name calling. Perhaps, you learned this from Donald Trump. But it is one of the many reasons I and others consider him manifestly unfit to hold the office of President of the United States. Recall how shocked we were when Bill Clinton debased the Oval Office with Monica Lewinsky? And when Barack Obama made a mockery of his office that represents the greatest nation on earth by bowing to foreign leaders? Now we have a candidate for President who cannot maintain the simple civility and dignity which befits this high office, since he calls his opponents childish and often unwarranted names, while making faces that belong on a school yard playground.
As to your own name calling, I really need to answer your claim that I am merely trolling as a PhonyDoc. Check out drbonnette.com and you will see that there is nothing phony about my professional degrees and work. I am not hiding behind a pseudonym.
My sole purpose in commenting on this thread and others is because I love this great nation and hope to help save it from being forced to confront a choice, not between two nominees as to which is more fit to be President of the United States, but as to which one is least unfit.
That is the reason that I urge the delegates to take the unusual, but perfectly legal, step of blocking the nomination of Donald Trump and replacing him with a more respectable and trustworthy, consistently conservative nominee — one who passionately believes in and will follow the Constitution, secure the border, restore religious freedom, and genuinely make America great again.
@Redteam:
Same could have been said about you when you first showed up here (long after I came).
Obviously.
By whom? Exactly whose “rules” are you blathering about?
You know, RT, you really shouldn’t comment on things you seems to know little about; like process.
Again, you show you know little about the process. But keep it up. Others will soon learn that you are all hat and no cattle.
@retire05: I damn sure won’t learn anything from you. When were you committed?
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.:
I won’t bother to do that as you have nothing of interest to contribute. Just because you don’t like the results of a contest, played by the rules, you want to change the rules. That’s called cheating. I’ve not heard of Trump being a cheater, perhaps he could learn from you if he decides he needs to acquire that ability.
@Redteam:
Shame, because when it comes to knowing how elections work, you are a juvenile novice.
Ah, more insults. Seems that’s all you Trumpeteers have in your arsenal.
Romney’s Latest Decision Has Big Implications For The #NeverTrump Movement
Sasse just got a huge slap-down at his state’s convention, one so bad that it could spell doom for his reelection.
Speaker Ryan: Voters Are Right To Trust Trump To ‘Lead Our Party’
Rand Paul has kept his word and says he will vote for the nominee.
#NeverTrump Circles the Drain as Republicans Accept the Reality of Donald Trump
Retire05 and D.B.PH.D actually think that the after declaring Tump the presumptive nominee, that Rince is suddenly going to allow the renegade delegates to change the rules for the first vote, so that they can renege on what they promised the voters. You two are some kind of nuts if you think that is going to happen. The party leadership is not that frigging stupid. They would cause the a full all out base revolt against them.
Retire05, i hate to shove reality in your face, but there is no way that Cruz would win a majority of unbound delegate votes. He isn’t that likeable, which is why he has been found wanting. Do you think California Republicans are going to vote for Cruz? Don’t make me laugh.
Mr. Ph.D, there is no establishment ‘anointed one’ waiting in the wings that the Republican base is going to vote for. They have overwhelmingly rejected ALL GOPe progressive candidates. Just as they have rejected the establishment machine that has been lying to them and screwing them over since Bush Senior one his one term. Telling them to “bugger-off” and star-chambering in another “Romney” is not going to win the 2016 election.
Trump needs less than 47% of the remaining delegates. With the last two announcing they are suspending their runs, the likelihood is that the majority of remaining contests will favor Trump by at least 50% because he is the only one with an active campaign.
@Ditto:
Just for the record, since you seem to have trouble seeing where I am coming from: I have supported Ted Cruz during the primary season, not any of the Establishment candidates. I realize that the greatest possible probability at this point is that Trump will become the nominee on the first ballot.
That said, I do not believe that this is in the best interest of the Party or, more importantly, the nation. Trump’s nomination can be legally and honorably avoided in the manner I have described several times above. What I want to correct here is the impression that I would then want the delegates to pick an “Establishment” nominee instead of Trump. I would not.
Since the largest quantity of delegates is now probably loyal to Cruz as opposed to Trump, what one must understand is that they also would not want an Establishment alternative nominee. Could it be Cruz? I don’t think so at this point, since it would be disruptive enough to dump Trump without picking someone who would then be accused of manipulating the delegates for his own benefit — whether true or not.
Therefore follows the need to find another possibility outside the group that actually ran in the primaries. That is why I mentioned possibly Scott Walker, who quit before any votes were taken — or some retired military person, who is held in high esteem and already vetted by reason of his military career.
I know you have no sympathy for this scenario, but I want you to understand that I am not an Establishment crony in disguise! Cruz was the only “outsider” in this race other than Trump. Whatever faults you may think his has, Trump has him “trumped” in spades — as most objective observers realize.
Thus the nation now faces a choice between the two most widely disliked and disrespected candidates in recent history.
That is why it is imperative to opt for the last legitimate alternative, which would be to use the inherent powers of the delegates — powers which exist in the continuing bylaws of the GOP — to free the delegates on the first ballot, thereby allowing the people of the country a real choice between an intensely corrupt Hillary Clinton and an anti-establishment very respectable candidate who would secure the border and restore limited government to this great nation.
I don’t expect you who support Trump to agree with my perspective, but I would hope that you can at least grasp that it makes sense to those of us who neither support the Establishment of the GOP nor find Trump to be an acceptable nominee.
@retire05:
Insult? not to you. You haven’t even learned that I’m not a Trumpeteer, even though I’ve said many times I have never voted for him and have repeatedly only said, in support of him, that I will vote for the nominee of the Republican party as long as he is eligible. i.e., a natural born citizen. Something you apparently do not understand the definition of. But it’s certainly not someone born in Canada to a Cuban citizen.
You can attempt to trade insults all day, but that’ll be a losing proposition for you. You got lost in this discussion at the beginning.
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.: My primary agreement with you is that OVER 50% of the electorate does not want Trump or Clinton as POTUS—to that 50% + I would add Cruz and Sanders.
Where does that leave us—the actual majority of the voters–the not so silent majority?
As a lifelong Kennedy Dem I’m gonna say Joe Biden saves the Party and can win the G.E.
What say you non Trumpist Repubs.?? Do you really think Cruz could win G.E.?
BTW–anyone who supports Trump for POTUS is by definition a Trumpeteer–obviously.
@Richard Wheeler:
As one who was once within a few feet of Jack Kennedy and who voted for him in 1960, I guess you could say I was once a Kennedy Democrat. As I got older, I became a conservative Republican.
I cannot tell you who would win the general election today. I can only tell you who I think would have been a great, consistently-conservative, president — and that is Ted Cruz.
Given the face that God gave him, I am amazed he got as far as he did against the two billion dollars in free ads the media gave Trump and the fact that the entire Establishment was against him.
There was once another candidate with a face so uninviting that he had to grow a beard to cover it up. He would doubtless never get elected in today’s television world. But he was probably the greatest president in history.
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.:
All this about a suitable candidate and you don’t even know that Cruz is not eligible to be president. A person can not be born in Canada to a Cuban citizen parent and be a ‘natural born American citizen’. That’s rule 1.
There is no existing rule of the delegates that allow them to not vote for the person they are committed to on the first ballot. Oh sure, I’m sure that if the person that were nominated were convicted of murder on the day of the vote, they could probably caucus and figure out how to legally not vote for him.
I can not believe there are so many ‘free thinkers’ that think it is okay to not vote for the person that they are compelled to vote for according to the rules. I do realize that everyone that finds their team down by a few points near the end of the game want to extend the game to give their team a little more time to pull out a victory, but if a vote were taken, most people would vote to ‘play by the rules’. It’s hard to believe we have people getting Ph D’s that have no inner values, that are in favor of changing the rules after the game has been played to award the victory to someone else. Maybe it’s true that it only means it is piled higher and deeper, but it doesn’t change the rotten core. Again you reference Scott Walker as someone that wasn’t in the primaries. He entered the race, saw the writing on the wall and exited the race. The writing hasn’t changed.
As I’ve said, if you had been here more than 2 days, you would know that my original position in this race was not for Trump and I did not vote for him in the primary in my state. But my position was that I would vote for the Repub in the presidential election as long as it’s an eligible person. So those that want to label me as a Trumpeteer are just looking foolish. The country can not stand to have a Dimocrat elected for the next 4 years as it would affect the Supreme Court for many years and we will lose things that we can never get back. The simple list of potential noms that Trump put out for the court is enough to convince me that he’s not a liberal. I’m not saying he wasn’t 10 years ago, but he now has the benefit of having watched an idiot in the office for the last 8 years.
@Richard Wheeler:
So that makes you Gay? since you support rainbow warriors. And here you are at Coronado, with your wife and all you have to do is try to prove that someone is a Trumpeteer.
You, being a supporter of Hillary, what does that make you? A Hillerite?
Kennedy Dem, eh? Tell us all, how many times did you vote for Jack Kennedy? Joe Biden? he’s a bigger clown than Dan Quayle, but then you only said that to get a laugh, right.
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.: You’ll likely find this hard to believe, but this is almost exactly how I originally felt about Cruz.
But since he was clearly not eligible, I never considered him as a viable candidate.
I don’t even object to his face, I actually think he’s a lot more attractive than Obama and that didn’t stop Obama.
The establishment was equally against Trump and Cruz, Trump even more so than Cruz because Cruz is/was at least a politician and is in it primarily for the money and position.
Then Trump came along with the right message and delivered by a TV personality that knows how to appeal to the viewers. Make America Great Again. I think Trump is smart enough to understand that the country is in trouble unless someone changes the direction and I do not believe he will do something that would be against the interest of his children. Regardless of his divorce’s, which he is likely at least 50% responsible for, he and his children seem to have excellent relationships.
Several times you have mentioned this ‘deity’ sitting in the wings waiting for the anointment and advocate abandoning the civilized rules in place for determining a nominee and appoint this ‘deity’, but for some reason you can’t put a name on this ‘deity’.
Have you always been an advocate of dumping the rules when they are not favorable to you or is this just a new creation because you like Cruz better than Trump?
@Redteam: I’m back from Coronado–at Hotel Del prices 2 nights was plenty–what an incredible place-down the beach from SEALS main training facility.
i don’t support HRC—you do support Trump–a proud? Trumpeteer you are.Why be ashamed of it?
Bigger clown than Quayle? That’s tough to do but Trump is working on it.
@Richard Wheeler:
Yes, but Biden doesn’t have to work on it. Natural ability.
You clearly do not understand the meaning of the word ‘support’.
I’m certainly not ‘ashamed’ to say that I will vote for the Republican nom in the general election, so I will be supporting the Republican Party. If that constitutes ‘support’ then you will ‘support’ Hillary. There is no way in hell that you won’t vote and there is no way you won’t vote for the Dimocrat and that, Rainbow Warrior, is Hillary.
I’m surprised you didn’t stay for the big Rainbow Warriors bash at Coronado this weekend, sounds as if all the guys will be there. Huge ad campaign for the parades, etc. Maybe you’ll at least be able to make it for Saturdays big doings.
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.:
I know exactly where you’re coming from, as a sour grapes – sore loser you advocate telling the base to “frig-off” because you don’t like the person they do.
I don’t care what you think is in the best interest of the party. Check the polls of the party base, the majority do not agree with what you think is in their best interest.. Because your candidate (Cruz) can not possibly win the first vote, you are desperately trying to find a crooked way to keep the candidate the base preferred from getting the nomination by immorally unbinding the delegates from having to act ethically in accordance to how they promised their constituents.
Which also tells me that you are also naive about the delegates. IF the delegates are unbound, Cruz still lacks a majority. The majority of the delegates were picked by the GOPe and favor the establishment fringe of the party, whom detests Cruz more than they do Trump. IF the delegates are unbound they can vote for anyone else they like regardless of whether they ran or not. That person is not going to be Cruz. It will be an establishment anointed Princeling.
With the majority voter anger about the way neither party represents them, and the fact that in return for “holding their noses” and voting for progressive establishment Republicans, the GOPe has stabbed the conservative base in the back for decades and tried to reduce their power within the party hierarchy. YET you in your unethical pondering, seem to actually think that these highly energized voters are going to meekly accept being kicked in the teeth at the convention.
No. That’s not going to happen. Not this time. The voters are too pissed off.
@Redteam:
Point 1: Multiple attempts have been made to challenge Cruz’s legal eligibility and all have been rejected out of hand. No, it has not been to the Supreme Court yet. Note that SCOTUS would not even hear an eligibility case against Obama, where Leo Dinofrio offered a solid brief that did not depend on him being born outside the territorial limits of the United States. No case ever even got four votes for certiori.
Point 2: I gave you a link to Nate Silver’s web site wherein he clearly states that the convention can change the delegate rules on the first ballot. I think Silver has researched this better than you or I have. The point is that this is not “dumping the rules,” but using other, more general rules, to change more specific ones regarding delegates’ freedom in voting.
Point 3: I also like Trump’s list of SCOTUS nominees. I just wish I could trust him to stick to them. I cannot, based on the number of other things has has waffled on — from immigration to taxes. As Cruz correctly observed: Trump is a pathological liar.
Point 4. You were right about Ted Cruz in the first place. Why do you think that your legal analysis about his eligibility is superior to that of the various state officials who have rejected challenges to his eligibility? This is a dead horse.
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.:
So? I’m not stupid. I know what a natural born citizen is and Cruz AIN’T one. I don’t believe all this ‘lack of standing’ crap. Every citizen of the US is impacted by whether the president is legal or not. They are just afraid to take it up. It’s about popularity.
BS. First, Nate Silvers comments are worth less that Dennis Bonnette’s and he gives no ‘legal’ way to unbind the delegates before the first vote. Only a nuclear option which would only nuke the Republican Party, not the delegates. Delegates DO NOT HAVE freedom in voting on the first ballot, legally. It really troubles me that some university would give a PhD to someone that has such obvious disregard for the rules of civilization that they would betray the millions and millions of voters just because it’s not the candidate they wanted. If civilization is okay with this disregard, why didn’t we just throw out the results of the election when Obama got elected the first time, and vote again. Or just appoint the deity waiting in the wings to be anointed.
Lyin Ted? If we get do-overs because of lying, Obama would have been gone long ago. Do you hold all politicians to the ‘can’t change your mind’ rule? Do you hold yourself to the ‘can’t change your mind’ rule? If someone gives you a very good reason to change your mind, are you still committed to ‘not changing’ your mind? Do you think Cruz still has all the same opinions as he did 10 years ago? He has not evolved with enlightenment? Is Trump the only pol that is not allowed to change his mind? I’ve not seen a single position that he has changed on that is important. Maybe he did decide to make the wall higher than he originally proposed, so what? I’m for keeping all Musims out until they are properly vetted. Aren’t you?
You can not tell me that you think a person born in Canada to a Cuban father and an ex pat American and that does not even have an American birth certificate is a ‘natural born’ American citizen. Any various state official that thinks he is, is a moron. I guess you even think Obama is an American, without there being any proof that he is. Dead horse? To all dead minds, maybe.
Probably did more damage to the country than all other presidents combined. But then he ignored the rules also, sounds like your kind of guy.
@Redteam:
Do you realize what you just wrote?
Me: “But he was probably the greatest president in history.:
You: “Probably did more damage to the country than all other presidents combined. But then he ignored the rules also, sounds like your kind of guy.”
I am beginning to wonder whether you actually can read anything correctly. If you check the context of my statement in post 78 and know anything at all about American history, you should immediately have known I was referring to Abraham Lincoln. It did not need to be said.
Either you just cannot read or you know nothing of American history or you think Lincoln “did more damage to the country than all other presidents combined.”
In any of these alternatives, I am wasting my time responding to you.
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.: Trumpeteer Red Team crystal clear in his opinion of Abe Lincoln.
i’ve found it helpful to ignore him for weeks at a time—-but then he continues with such Bizarre beyond reactionary commentary.Hell he’s having fun. Actually reminds me of a Southern version of New Yorker Trump.lol
@Richard Wheeler:
Thanks for the information re RT.
Wish you had told me sooner!
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.:
Well gee, isn’t that a surprise? It just so happens that is who I was referring to when I said he had likely done more harm to this country than all other presidents combined. As bad as Obama is, he likely will not end up causing as much harm as Lincoln did. Was the Emancipation Proclamation a legal act?
Your real problem is that you know I figured you out quite early and pointed it out to other readers. Just when Hillary’s PAC announces it’s hiring hundreds of trolls for conservative sites, Look who showed up.
If you thought you could come to this site and blow smoke and be worshiped, I’m quite sure you’re disappointed. But yes, you did manage to befriend one screwed up liberal, socialist dude on this site. It is certainly helpful to you to listen to him and repeat his strange philosophy. Just to see how much his word is worth, he said to you:
but he is lying. He reads every word I say and the worst thing for him is that he believes most of it. See how he’s ignoring me today, look how many comments he has directed to me or discussed me.
You’ll note he uses the name Richard Wheeler / Rainbow Warrior interchangeably. He’s a constant attendee/supporter of the Rainbow Pride parades in his area and is a dyed in the wool socialist liberal pretending to be something else. He’s even claiming he won’t vote for the Dimocrat candidate. But he’s even more adamant that he won’t vote for a Republican, unless, as you do, they change to a liberal candidate.
Be careful when RW invites you to participate unless you already own a pair of assless chaps.
He couldn’t have, you weren’t here.
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.: thought you best find out for yourself about RT
As Kitt pointed out he spends a lot of time dreaming about men in assless chaps-strange guy-seems conflicted– I’ve always used Richard Wheeler –nothing to hide—RT ??-who knows what he’s really about.
Semper Fi RW
@Bonnette : See how he’s ignoring me?
I didn’t see Kitt point that out. But RW is the one that actually posted pics of pride parades, that he participated in, with those dressed as I said on his Facebook page. No, he’s open about it, I’ll agree that he doesn’t try to hide it. But you’ll note the initials are the same RW Richard, Rainbow,
just read my comments, I’m not hiding anything.
@Richard Wheeler #82 –
Hope you and the Mrs. enjoyed Coronado and the Hotel Del. My favorite place is a Mexican restaurant that looks like a dive on the outside, inside has the look and feel of a 50’s diner. The Mexican food is probably some of the best. Over there in the training facility, it’s a place in constant motion.
RT–For the record in “Obama Admin Arrogance Soaked In Ignorance–‘#39 kitt after calling you a troll said “Back under the bridge to dream of men in chaps” You seem to know where all the “guys are meeting”–are you closeted RT?
i know you troll my F.B. but you seem to make up what you see.You got nothing better to do?–get the hell up and take your wife out to dinner. That’s what I plan to do tonight.
David Thanks—It’s a great walk around town with some fun restaurants and bars—Semper Fi
@Richard Wheeler:
Nope, I’m not one of them Rainbow Warriors, I leave that to you guys that all hang together.
I notice Mr Bonnette hasn’t had anything to say all day. Strange.
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.: Trump has more primary votes than any Republican ever!!!
@Redteam:
I noticed that Rich has stopped bringing up polls now that they showing Trump is ahead of Hillary.
Before the Trump supporters get too enthralled with the righteousness of “not changing any GOP convention rules,” consider whether they might not be risking changing some rules far more essential to the United States itself and its constitutional democracy.
I don’t intend to argue the point, since this perspective might be wrong. Trump might just be a pussycat in disguise. But please take the time to read of this possibility:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-dangerous-acceptance-of-donald-trump
I am sure some will jump all over defending the harmlessness of Donald Trump. As I said, I won’t argue with you. I just want readers to consider what they might be toying with in giving Trump the power he is seeking.
And, for once, please don’t just attack the author or the publication. Consider the arguments and the message itself.
@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.: So Bonnette is trying to throw us a small bone. I said it is strange he showed up, espousing the greatness of Hillary just after the huge announcement of Hillary’s super PAC hiring hundreds of trolls to harass the conservatives. His link above only serves to add more proof to that. While Bonnette claims to be a conservative, he links us to liberal sites and tells how he admires the writer and for us to heed the liberals advice. Gopnik refers to Trump as a pathological liar, but in doing so tells so many untruths, he could, or is likely, actually displaying his on truth shortcomings. Everyone should understand that the purpose of Gopnik’s spiel is to get someone to think he is objective in wanting good government by opposing Trump, whereas the truth is he is preaching a take over of the government by the liberal socialists.
Why would someone with the stated objectives of Bonnette want anyone to read anything that a Gopnik has to say?
So he’s saying, when you’re in an outhouse and a liberal is shoveling sh!t into your mouth, ignore all that and enjoy your meal. Sure.
Are the paychecks arriving on time?
@Ditto:
Yeah strange how that works, and ‘never trump’ has fallen apart. Seems as if Richie has no one left that he can vote for, he’s written off Bernie and Hillary and Daddy Joe, that only leaves Trump.
I’m sure Trump is hoping he doesn’t vote for him.