Calling BS on Bootlickers Hannity, Gallagher et. al Because I Don’t Slobber at the Altar of Donald Trump

Loading

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
214 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Redteam:

Predictable RT response — filled with ad hominems.

For the record, I view both Hillary and Trump as despicable and dangerous candidates. That is why I advocated the only remaining way to rid the nation of having to pick between these two in November.

(Now RT will accuse me of being pro-Establishment again!)

@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.: I didn’t attack anyone’s character. The person’s I attacked don’t have any character.

That is why I advocated the only remaining way to rid the nation of having to pick between these two

That is NOT what you advocated. What you actually advocated is being a traitor and violating all the rules of a civilized society. Almost everyone, everywhere advocates playing by the rules. You are advocating a dictatorship whereby you dismiss the democratically elected representatives and install one of your choice.
Why would anyone listen to that hogwash? Here’s your character scale:

-1________________0

It appears that RT either does not know the meaning of “ad hominem,” or else, just cannot resist the impulse to engage in such pseudo-arguments.

For those new to this thread, I have already refuted his post 103 claims.
See above my posts 64, 69, and 75.

@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.:

It appears that RT either does not know the meaning of “ad hominem,”

Actually I do and this sentence was my response.

I didn’t attack anyone’s character. The person’s I attacked don’t have any character.

For those new to this thread, I have already refuted his post 103 claims.

Already? You’re saying that you attempting to justify scuttling the Democratic process and installing a dictatorship is a refutation?
Tell us again why the people that voted for Trump should have their votes thrown out and a nominee by fiat(order of a dictator) is the way to go.
The reason I want you to say it again is I wouldn’t have thought there is an American citizen stupid enough to say what you did, so I’d like for you to repeat it. I should say it won’t make you look too good, but then you wouldn’t understand it anyhow.
You didn’t say if your first paycheck arrived from the PAC on time.

@Ditto: Real clear politics have losers Clinton and Trump in a dead heat—both have huge negatives– over 60% of the voters can’t stand either of them I’d say the majority of Fa’ers dislike both
Bonnette is right in suggesting the majority would welcome a 3rd choice.
I say again I’ll endorse Trump the day after Cruz endorses him.

Trumpeteers like you and BIll Petercat and RT are a minority even here at F.A

You like polls? Nationwide RCP Bernie 51%—The Donald 39%

@Richard Wheeler:

It turns out that there is no need to change any RNC convention rules in order that delegates be free to vote their consciences on the first and any subsequent ballot. Moreover, all delegate votes are to be cast in secret.

Here is a copy of a letter I just sent to the RNC Chairman:

Reince Priebus
RNC Chairman

Dear Mr. Priebus,

According to the article linked after this sentence, it is the official Republican Party legal ruling that absolutely no delegates to the convention are bound with respect to the candidate they will vote for on the first or any subsequent ballot: http://www.redstate.com/diary/blbennett/2016/05/23/trump%E2%80%99s-41-%E2%80%9Cwin%E2%80%9D-gop-scheme-gone-bad-delegates-can-fix/

According to the Republican Legal Counsel in 2008, “The RNC does NOT recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.”

It is your legal and moral responsibility as RNC Chairman to inform all delegates to the Republican Convention in Cleveland in July that delegates are legally and morally free to vote for whomever they choose on the first and all other ballots.

Sincerely,

Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.

@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.: I’m not sure who’s the largest fruitcake here, D Bonnette or Curly Haugland. Both of them argue: We all voted and I didn’t win so i want everyone to disregard the vote and do it over.
I know it’s a minor point, but Curly’s DA argument is based on the 2008 convention rules and 2012 convention rules. He seems to want to ignore the fact that the rules are re-written or modified at each convention to govern the NEXT convention. So the rules as revised in 2012 to cover this years convention is the one ole Curly should be talking about. He’s assuming no one noticed that a few people wanted to violate the rules those two conventions and did anything in the new rules to prevent that tactic. I’m going to hypothesize that they did make some changes to prohibit and that’s the reason Curly is not talking about the rules for this convention and has reverted to the past.

Ever hear of ‘sour grapes’?

I just love the part of the argument that Fox is so much in the tank for Trump that they are giving him so much more time than they are giving anyone else, then turn around and tell us that MSNBC is giving Trump more time than anyone else either. So now he has MSNBC in the tank for Trump also?
His reasoning behind Fox losing viewers to CNN is all screwed up. It’s not because Fox is in the tank, it’s because the Trump viewers tuned OUT of Fox because of Megan Kelly.

Here is the rule, as written for this year’s convention:

In case of a brokered convention, Rule 40(b) of the 2016 convention rules states that a candidate must have the support of a majority of the delegates of at least eight delegations in order to get the nomination.[2] On the first ballot, delegates from all states and territories except Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam and a few from Louisiana must vote for the candidate who won their support on the day of their state’s primary or caucus. On the second ballot, 55 percent of the delegates are free to vote for whomever they want. By the third ballot, 85 percent of the delegates are free

So instead of relying on ole Curly’s opinion, why not read the rules and play by the rules. Your advocation of ‘taking your toys and go home to mommy’ is a little childish and should be beneath someone who signs their name with their degree behind it. But apparently you don’t agree with that.

@Richard Wheeler:

You like polls? Nationwide RCP Bernie 51%—The Donald 39%

You see how many signed the letter congratulating Hillary on her choice of Karl Marx for Vice president?

You see how many agreed to donate to HAMAS at Portland State University so that they can carry out their terrorist attacks on hospitals and civilian centers in Jerusalem? They were all Dimocrats and were told specifically that is what the money would be used for.

@Richard Wheeler:

Real clear politics have losers Clinton and Trump in a dead heat

Real Clear Politics averages new polls with older ones. They openly admit to using that method. That’s why their polls always lag behind the current trend.

We can always count on RW to cherry pick polls. Greg likes to pull that too. For myself, I look at “who” is polling before I give any poll credence. It’s too easy to manipulate polls to a desired result.

@Ditto: You “look at who is polling” before giving credence. That would be the definition of cherry picking Ditto.

@Richard Wheeler:

No, it is using a brain to assess whether a poll may have built-in bias, before assuming a poll is legitimate. If it is a poll from MSNBC, CNN, FOX (yes, I include FOX), Salon, Huffington Post, Progressnow, and a good many of the leftist websites and newspapers, then I don’t count on them to be accurate. There are polls, and there are polls. Telemarketing is a huge local business where I live and many of these phone banks work for polling companies. I have met socially and have had many conversations with some polling executives, and they have openly informed me on how the game is played. I am well accounted in how polls can be skewed for a desired result. It’s all in the phrasing of the questions, and how the statistics are compiled. As such I am highly skeptical of polls.

Come now Rich, I know you weren’t born yesterday.

@Ditto: Spare me the B.S. Ditto cite a couple of polls, you “deem worthy”, that show Trump in better than a statistical tie..

BTW Gallup latest–you didn’t slam them– Obama approval 53% Disapprove 43% As I suggested losers Hillary and Trump are making BHO look better.

@Richard Wheeler:

Spare me the B.S.

You’re the one spreading BS. You want to look at polls, do it yourself. I am not yours to demand.

@Ditto: I said the race was even–if you dispute that back up your claim with something. Pretty simple
I repeat—can’t stomach either and the majority of the electorate agrees with me.

@Richard Wheeler:

That is why I think that, if the Republicans have the courage to dump Trump and replace him with any reputable conservative who has a believable intention to appoint Constitution-respecting justices, the comparison to “crooked Hillary” would lead to her downfall — even if a lot of Trump supporters threw one of his tantrums.

@Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.:

That is why I think that, if the Republicans have the courage to dump Trump

Now that it’s official that he has more than 1237 votes, you’ll just have to go cry in your beer. I guess we’ll just stay with the American system thru this election cycle and maybe you can persuade someone to go to your dictator system for nominee selection some time in the future.

@Redteam:

Nothing is official until the delegates at the convention actually vote to ratify it as such.. The truth is that far less than 1237 delegates are actually loyal Trump supporters. If they all were, no one would be so concerned about keeping them “bound” on the first ballot. If you are so sure Trump is the acclaimed nominee, exercise the general convention rules that will free up all the delegates to vote as they choose on the first ballot and watch what happens.

@Richard Wheeler:

I already stated why I dispute Real Clear Politics’s polls. They average past polls with current polling. RCP claims that by poll averaging, they get a more accurate sample. Where political races are concerned, that’s hogwash. RCP’s methodology ensures that they will not have their finger on the current pulse of US voters. People like you who followed their poll were completely surprised about both Bernie and Trump’s continuous rise. You want a poll that I believe is accurate? How about The Military Times:

Military Times survey: Troops prefer Trump to Clinton by a huge margin

Trump with 54% vs Hillary at 25%

Trump against Bernie is tighter, but Trump still wins with 51% vs Sander’s 38%

Rich’s fellow Marines support Trump at 60% with a mere 18% for the Hildabeast.

A big “Semper Fi” to them.

@Dennis Bonnette:

The current rules are what they are. All the candidates including Cruz were fine with the rules. Your support for unethical solutions to your political loser sour-grapes whining, describes a rather underhanded and slimy personality.

@Ditto:

The current rules are what they are.

You clearly don’t know how the rules for any convention works. Stop showing yourself to be so poorly informed.

@Ditto:

Why is it that Trump supporters seem unable to resist ad hominem comments about those who disagree with them — just like Donald Trump himself?

I do not subscribe to the unethical assertion that a good end justifies evil means. The nation finds its primary systems have tentatively given voters a choice between two of the most distrusted and disliked candidates in recent history. You are being selective about the rules you would have the convention follow — given that the process has been hijacked by a lifelong Democrat claiming to have become a conservative Republican (maybe). The convention rules are not a suicide pact for the Party and, more importantly, for the nation. The Party ultimately determines its own nominees. Careful examination of the rules reveals that the delegates retain the ultimate power to determine the nominee. The rules to which you refer, that allegedly give the nomination to the first candidate reaching 1237, are a subset of broader RNC rules that give ultimate power to the delegates, acting as a whole. Should they decide that the interest of the Party and the nation supercedes that subset reading of the rules, nothing either morally or legally prevents the delegates from acting in behalf of the greater good of the Party and the nation.

I do not expect the above described scenario to take place. But please remember that the Founding Fathers were viewed as unethical traitors by the British. History views them differently. You may well have your way and get Donald Trump as President. The real question is whether this will truly serve the common good of the Republic.

Good men can honestly disagree about the more noble course of action in a given situation. In your insistence on following the subset rules that apparently give Trump the nomination even before the delegates as a whole have discharged their duties, I hope that the long term good of the nation is well served. But please understand that not all citizens share your optimism about Donald Trump. While the means I suggest to remedy his nomination may appear radical, they would not be available within the general rules of the Party were they not legal, and therefore, conceived in some extreme situation to be necessary and morally good.

I submit that we now find ourselves in such an extreme situation.

Views from Europe. This article appeared in Germany’s Speigel Online:

America’s Agitator: Donald Trump Is the World’s Most Dangerous Man

Also this one, around a week ago, which appeared in the print edition of Der Spiegel:

An Exhausted Democracy: Donald Trump and the New American Nationalism

@Ditto: No surprise that military women favored HRC BY 50%+ offsetting Trump’s similar favorability with men–Officers voted Dem at a higher rate than enlisted.
Nationally this race is even with over 60% negs. for both of them.

@Dennis Bonnette:

Why is it that Trump supporters seem unable to resist ad hominem comments about those who disagree with them

Speaking truth to dishonesty is not ad hminem. You are the one promoting changing the rules on the first vote to disenfranchise the choice of the voters, simply because you don’t like the choice they made. That is unscrupulous which means you are fully deserving of being called out on it.

I do not subscribe to the unethical assertion that a good end justifies evil means.

Um, clearly you do.

The convention rules are not a suicide pact for the Party and, more importantly, for the nation.

You are in a shrinking minority. I don’t see Trump as dangerous for the nation as Hillary, Sanders, Obama, The Democratic Parrty or the GOPe. Nor do I think having Trump as the nominee as being “suicidal.”. Suicidal would be to have either a GOPe or a far Right-wing conservative candidates whom the Republican Base rejected, steal the nomination. As angry as the base is, they would meekly give in to such treachery.

The voters are pissed, and none more than the GOP base. They will be even more pissed if you whiny-asses, sour-grapes Cruz losers try to steal the first vote and nomination away from Trump who now has over the necessary delegates for nomination.

Should they decide that the interest of the Party and the nation supercedes that subset reading of the rules, nothing either morally …

Bullcrap. The delegates pledged to the GOP and their constituents to vote for the person selected as the candidate at least in the first vote. To go back on that pledge is morally bereft and dishonorable. Trump has won enough delgates to be awarded the nomination as was laid down, and ALL the candidates including your precious Cruz agreed to the rules.

@retire05:

I didn’t make the convention rules. The GOPe did, and the rules are the rules. You don’t like them, too damn bad. Your candidate agreed to be held by those rules as did his delegates. Buy a crying towel, put on your big girl panties and get over it.

REPUBLICAN PARTY Sets Primary Turnout Record – 28 Million Votes with 5 States Left

THANKS TO DONALD TRUMP — GOP BREAKS PRIMARY TURNOUT RECORD

(Snip)

The Republican Party started the year with 17 bona fide candidates in the race. This was more than any major party ever. In spite of this, Trump has now accumulated 57% of all Republican delegates to date and enough to win the nomination. (Note that the Green Papers website has yet to record Trump going over the top.)

As of today 45 Republican state elections and 44 Democrat state elections have taken place. Trump leads Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in state wins with 31 and in primaries with 28. He’s won 69% of the state elections to date.

Trump has received more than 11 million votes to date in the state elections according to http://www.thegreenpapers.com. This is 42% of all Republican votes received to date.

The Republican Party has set a party record this year in pre-convention state election turnout with over 28 million votes to date which is 136% of the record high voter turnout in 2008. That’s four million more votes than the Democratic primary race this year.

There are five states left to vote including California.

This increase in votes can be attributed to Donald Trump.

@Ditto:

Speaking truth to dishonesty is not ad hminem. You are the one promoting changing the rules on the first vote to disenfranchise the choice of the voters, simply because you don’t like the choice they made. That is unscrupulous which means you are fully deserving of being called out on it.

Again, you seem totally clueless as to how the convention process works. And yes, you have (many times) reduced your argument to nothing more than ad hominem attacks. So let me give you a crash course on how the convention really works.

A temporary rules committee shall meet prior to the start of the convention. The will then create, and propose rules for this current convention. There will then be a permanent rules committee elected, and the permanent rules committee will then present the rules, either in their original form or amended, to the body for a vote. At that time, the rules can be adopted, or amended, as per the vote of the body. Rule 40 is a prime example of that process.

You are in a shrinking minority.

If, perhaps, you mean that those of us who actually believe in the Constitution, support the rule of law and expects our nation to be led by someone who actually puts the good of the nation before self, possessing the dignity one has the right to expect from the person who occupies the highest office in the land, yes, I would agree; we are a shrinking minority.

I don’t see Trump as dangerous for the nation as Hillary, Sanders, Obama, The Democratic Parrty or the GOPe. Nor do I think having Trump as the nominee as being “suicidal.”. Suicidal would be to have either a GOPe or a far Right-wing conservative candidates whom the Republican Base rejected, steal the nomination. As angry as the base is, they would meekly give in to such treachery.

Ah, but I would wager that you were one of the multitudes that shouted “Give us a true conservative and we will regain the White House.” Now, you have chosen a carnival barker to lead you; right over the cliff.

The voters are pissed, and none more than the GOP base. They will be even more pissed if you whiny-asses, sour-grapes Cruz losers try to steal the first vote and nomination away from Trump who now has over the necessary delegates for nomination.

Ummm, more ad hominem attacks? There were many candidates, not just Cruz, eminently more qualified than a carnival barker who has spent his entire life promoting not the Constitution, but rather, himself.

I didn’t make the convention rules. The GOPe did, and the rules are the rules. You don’t like them, too damn bad. Your candidate agreed to be held by those rules as did his delegates. Buy a crying towel, put on your big girl panties and get over it.

You just don’t get it, do you? Are you that dense? THERE ARE NO RULES FOR THE COMING CONVENTION UNTIL THEY ARE WRITTEN AND VOTED ON BY THE BODY AS A WHOLE. If, as you claim, the rules are the rules, Rule 40 would have never been changed in Tampa.

Buy a copy of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 11th Edition, and stop showing yourself to be a pathetically ill informed buffoon.

@Ditto:

Thank you for making clear where you are coming from. You say that ” a far Right-wing conservative candidates whom the Republican Base rejected” would be suicidal for the Party.

This highlights why Donald Trump actually has hijacked the Republican nomination. When he first entered the primaries, he proclaimed that he was “very conservative” and “very pro-life,” which surely helped him greatly in the SEC primaries. It turns out that he is a lifelong Democrat and supporter of Planned Parenthood, who even now cannot decide whether men should be allowed in restrooms with little girls. Like all unprincipled politicians, he explicitly refuses to take a stand on the issue itself and hides behind leaving it to the states to decide.

The GOP has long been committed to limited government, being pro-life, deeply concerned about religious liberty, well aware of the principles of the Founding Fathers, committed to strict Constitutional interpretation by SCOTUS, and so forth. Trump and his supporters simply are not very concerned about such things.

The concept of a two party system is not merely to have alternating groups win elections. It functions effectively for the nation solely when the parties represent conflicting ideas and principles. With Trump in charge of the GOP, this basic difference is badly compromised.

I know you don’t care about this. I know that you think it is somehow unprincipled to urge the GOP to defend vigorously its nature and principles against being hijacked by a very effective, but unprincipled, huckster.

Just remember that telling the Republican base to take a hike as Trump thinks he can ride the royal road to victory in November may never come to pass if the majority of the traditional Republican base stays home. Your mere eleven million votes for Trump thus far represents a slim portion of what it will take to get your candidate elected. Good luck.

And yes, it is perfectly principled for the Party to defend itself against this outside invasion by using the rules already in place which you refuse to understand. I realize that the delegates won’t use them, for the simple reason that most delegates may not like Trump, but they themselves are members of the Establishment and are not likely to act on principle to save the nation and the Party from backing someone with no moral character or traditional Republican principles. Dumping Trump using the Party rules already in place still remains a perfectly principled position to advocate — even if you cannot understand why.

@Dennis Bonnette: Conservatives bowed to the Party establishment and lost with moderates Mac and Mitt
Righteously PO’ed–, LOSING TO AN African American OF ALL THINGS– they vowed never again. Now rather than backing Conservative Cruz they’ve dropped their drawers for a foul mouthed Populist simply to get a W. What the hell will they do if they lose again to a ridiculously weak candidate like HRC?

I’m looking forward to Donald and Bernie going at it.

@Richard Wheeler:

Conservatives did not really want either Mac or Mitt, but rather were outfoxed by the Establishment and forced to accept them. Clearly, not enough of them figured out which outsider really represented their interests this time out — unfortunately.

As for what happens if HRC wins, I fear we don’t get another shot at saving the Republic. SCOTUS will be liberal in perpetuity and many millions of illegals will be legal and voting Democrat to ensure the socialist takeover is permanent.

Here is the Haugland book showing that the delegates are already free to vote their consciences at the GOP convention, based upon existent rules:

http://www.citizensinchargefoundation.org/unbound

Anyone may download it for free — if they want to know the truth.

Remember that there is still a month and a half for events to unfold. No one really knows or can predict the future with certainty this crazy election cycle.

@retire05:

… So let me give you a crash course on how the convention really works…

No one ever said that it was impossible to change the rules I simply pointed out that the current rules are what they are and that all the candidates and delegates agreed to be bound by them. If you think the committee is going to change the rules just so that Cruz can win, simply because a few of his sore loser supporters sent them letters begging them to, I think you and DB are both delusional. The press would have a field day with that, telling America how disreputable that is, and no, the Republican base will not take such an offense against them lightly.

If, perhaps, you mean that those of us who actually believe in the Constitution, support the rule of law and expects our nation to be led by someone who actually puts the good of the nation before self…

Get off your high horse. You are are no more staunch supporters of the Constitution and Rule of law than any of the rest of us. Nor is your desired rules change noble so spare us the sanctimonious posturing. You and DB are just upset that Ted Cruz did not get enough of the Republican base vote to get nomination, so now that Trump has the prerequisite votes you want to steal the nomination away from him and award it to Cruz.

Ah, but I would wager that you were one of the multitudes that shouted “Give us a true conservative and we will regain the White House.” Now, you have chosen a carnival barker to lead you; right over the cliff.

An ad hominem attack on Trump Tsk Tsk, and just after you tried to admonish me for such. Hypocrite. I said months ago that I could have voted for Cruz were he found eligible. Holding citizenship in three different nations puts doubt to him being eligible. Cruz could and should have had filed the papers to legally renounce his Cuban and Canadian citizenship’s prior to the running but he did not do so. Simply verbally renouncing one of them (Canada but not Cuba) in front of a television camera is not sufficient.

Ummm, more ad hominem attacks?

It’s not ad hominem if it’s true. You and DB’s man lost. You can’t accept that, so you are acting like sore losers and desperately trying to unbound the delegates so they wont have to vote the way they promised.

THERE ARE NO RULES FOR THE COMING CONVENTION UNTIL THEY ARE WRITTEN AND VOTED ON BY THE BODY AS A WHOLE.

Are you dense? The committee wrote the rules for this year’s nomination process, voted for, and passed them at the last convention. Are you so dense that you don’t understand what it means to be a bound delegate?

@Dennis Bonnette:

You say that ” a far Right-wing conservative candidates whom the Republican Base rejected” would be suicidal for the Party.

No. That’s not what I said and you know it. If you are going to quote me do it properly and not take it out of context. This is what I said and I stick by it.

Ditto: “Nor do I think having Trump as the nominee as being “suicidal.”. Suicidal would be to have either a GOPe or a far Right-wing conservative candidates whom the Republican Base rejected, steal the nomination. As angry as the base is, they would meekly give in to such treachery.”

DB: “This highlights why Donald Trump actually has hijacked the Republican nomination.”

You and Retire05 are the ones wanting to “hijack” the nomination for your man Cruz. Trump is winning fair and square.

The GOP has long been committed to limited government, being pro-life, deeply concerned about religious liberty, well aware of the principles of the Founding Fathers, committed to strict Constitutional interpretation by SCOTUS, and so forth. Trump and his supporters simply are not very concerned about such things.

Now DB speaks down from his high horse. Spare me your sanctimonious preaching. The only GOPers who are against those lofty ideals are those of the GOPe. A good many of those who support Trump are just as conservative as you two are. Just because they didn’t pick your man doesn’t make them any less so.

I remind the both of you that Trump was not the one whom I wanted to run. I wanted Sen. Sessions. He didn’t run. Of course Trump isn’t perfect. None of the 17 who ran were perfect and that includes Cruz. Yet Trump has won over the required number of delegates and I expect that count to go up even higher on June 7th. If Cruz hadn’t gone on the attack against Trump he might have had a chance of being tapped for the VP slot, I would have definitely supported a Trump/Cruz ticket but that’s not going to happen. As things are now I would very much like Cruz as a SCOTUS nominee, because that is where he can do conservatives and the nation the most good, but his petty refusal to accept Trump will likely shoot that dream in the ass. The best solution now is to counter a President Trump by electing more Conservatives to Congress.

@Ditto:

It may well be that you and many Trump supporters agree with all the traditional conservative positions of the GOP. The problem is that there is precious little evidence that the man you are supporting does. As I said above, subsequent to the early primaries, it has become more and more evident that Donald Trump is a lifelong supporter of Democrats and Planned Parenthood. Worse yet, I no longer believe a word he says, just like I learned not to believe anything Obama says. Trump has reversed himself time and again and is clearly intellectually empty when it comes to knowing how to defend conservative principles. His problem is that he has not given enough thought to them in his life — prior to deciding to look like a conservative so as to scam the real conservatives in the GOP. The “deal” he has been working on has been to get the GOP nomination by any means necessary. Can you tell me a single conservative position that he has unequivocally defended consistently? And, if he waffles on all the other ones, how could you detect whether he would be consistent on one he has not flipped on as yet? The recent interview he gave on the trans-gender bathroom issue is all too revealing, as was his incredible way of handling the abortion question earlier.

If you are not supporting a clearly conservative candidate, how can you claim to be consistently conservative yourself? As for Cruz, I have said earlier that I do not think the delegates should pick him as the nominee, for the simple reason that it would appear self-serving, since most of the anti-Trump really conservative people are loyal to Cruz. But that would be up to the delegates — once they have saved the nation from having to choose between two of the most undesirable and untrusted nominees in recent history.

Rick Santorum Endorses Donald Trump after ‘Long Heart-to-Heart’

“The most important issue is preserving the Constitution of this country, and a liberal Supreme Court will destroy it,” Santorum stated during an interview on Fox News in which he endorsed Trump after revealing the two spoke a week ago and Trump asked for his support.

“Over the past several weeks, I’ve had numerous conversations with senior members of the Trump Campaign, including a long heart-to-heart with Donald Trump,” Santorum explained of his decision to endorse. “I am committed to working with Donald and his Administration to ensure that conservative priorities are advanced — not simply judicial nominees, but nominees to key administration positions.”

I suppose Retire05 will now declare that Santorum isn’t a ‘true’ conservative and that he doesn’t support the Constitution, Rule of Law or smaller government. (/sarc).

RNC & Donald J. Trump for President Announce 2016 Trump Victory Leadership Team

Vice Chairs on the committee include: Woody Johnson, Elliott Broidy, Ray Washburn, Diane Hendricks, Ambassador Mel Sembler and Ambassador Ronald Weiser.

I don’t think (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus would be helping to assemble a “victory team” with Trump is he were planning to change the convention’s rules to unbound delegates on the first vote. Maybe he didn’t get D.B.’s letter..

Meanwhile, let’s look at what one of the #nevertrump leaders has to say:

Is the ‘Never Trump’ Movement No More? Here’s What Leader Ben Howe Has to Say

“Fighting for the survival of conservatism, even as the party falls apart, is more important than any distaste you may have for the alternatives,” Howe said. “Donald Trump cannot be allowed to define conservatism for the next four years.”

Howe is so committed to the movement against Trump, he even advocates supporting Clinton in order to deny Trump a victory in November.

“My hope is for a viable third-party candidate, but I do believe that if that doesn’t happen, stopping Trump is more important than preventing Hillary,” he asserted. “As such, yes, I’d encourage anyone who looks at Trump as being as dangerous as I believe he is to pull the lever for Hillary.”

@Dennis Bonnette:

If you are not supporting a clearly conservative candidate, how can you claim to be consistently conservative yourself?

Because I am. Your “more conservative than thou” complaints are not compelling, are rather boorish and simply conjecture. I also supported Santorum, who I would have rather had get the nomination rather that Trump or Cruz. Remember however that you need more than just conservatives to win the general election. You must also convince moderates and independents to vote for you. I have never been convinced that Cruz could possibly do that. I’ve stated my position on your chosen candidate (Cruz) and I’m not going to keep doing so. I have more important things to do with my life rather than just continuously talking to “brick walls” (i.e. You and Retire05). The RNC is not going to act treacherously (and stupidly) to unbound the delegates before the first vote. It’s not going to happen with 80% of the party accepting that Trump has acquired more than the minimum number of delegates to win the nomination, has received more total base votes than any other candidate in RNC history, has managed to bring more minority voters to the GOP than they had ever even dreamed of, and has fairly won the right to be considered the “Presumptive Nominee.” The #never trump movement has floundered and is a dead issue. What you (and all conservatives) need to focus on now is getting more conservatives elected to Congress.

@Ditto:

. You and DB are just upset that Ted Cruz did not get enough of the Republican base vote to get nomination,

OK, arschloch, show where I ever said I supported Cruz.

You are a hateful, insulting clown, just like the candidate you support.

@Ditto:

First, Rick Santorum is a committed pro-life conservative. Second, it was Trump’s job to convince Santorum that he is also a conservative. It appears he did. But Trump’s long record of supporting liberal causes, including Planned Parenthood speaks for itself. Worse yet, his consistent inconsistency makes prediction of his future actions impossible. Just today he reneged on his own idea to debate Bernie Sanders. His constant lying and reversal of positions is too well documented to debate. Trust him if you will. I trust his word about as much as I do Obama’s. As Ted Cruz rightly noted, “He will betray his supporters.”

Second, it is the RNC Chairman’s job to unite the party. But he does not dictate to the delegates whether or not to revise any rules in the convention. He follows their dictates, not vice versa.

Third, I have repeatedly said that I have no confidence that the delegates will actually use their inherent powers to dump Trump and pick another candidate. Still, I maintain that the common good of the nation obliges them in conscience to use that power to assure that voters are not forced to choose between two nominees obviously unfit to hold the office of the presidency.

You can tell me about all the people who voted for Trump or endorse him. The problem is that the man lacks character, truthfulness, consistency of conservative policies, knowledge requisite for the office he seeks, and even mental maturity and stability. I know the GOP is trying to make the best of him and to push him over the finish line against “crooked Hillary.” But Someone once said, “You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.” Nominating a sow’s ear when there is a legal and moral alternative is not fulfilling the duty of a delegate to serve his conscience and the common good of the nation. They don’t have to find a silk purse — just a reputable conservative leader that people can actually vote for with pride, not merely as the lesser of two evils. Some have suggested an outstanding retired military leader, who has thereby already been vetted via his military career. That choice would be up the the delegates.

As I said, I don’t expect them to do it. But unnecessarily leaving the nation to choose between two unfit nominees with massive disapproval is a disservice to the Republic.

Call me a “brick wall” if you want, but that is my position.

@Ditto: Brought minority voters to Repub. Party?? You are dreaming–his numbers with Latins will be historically low—with African Americans continued low–and of course with women–disastrous.
He’s in a tie with a pathological liar like himself—sad choice for America.

@Richard Wheeler:

What has also been discovered is that Trump is not necessarily bringing “new” Republican voters to the table but rather getting out Republican voters to the primaries who normally vote only in the general elections. A wash in numbers will not help him win in the general election in November. But shhhhh, his minions won’t accept that.

“Crooked Hillary” is crooked. We all know it because, after all, Donald told us so.

Yet, it appears we should be calling Trump, “crooked Donald,” given his crooked involvement in Trump University. The sordid details are beginning to come out:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/27/news/trump-university/index.html

If we don’t call Trump, “crooked Donald,” you can be sure crooked Hillary will.

@Dennis Bonnette: There is nothing in that book that is binding on anyone, it’s all opinion, and you know what they say about Opinions, everyone has one. The rules were written in 2012 for this convention and just because someone opines that they can just ignore the rules and become a dictatorship does not mean that anyone should actually abandon the American system and go the dictatorship route. When a system is in place for people to vote to decide what they want and then someone decides that ‘they didn’t vote the right way’ so let’s just ‘throw out that vote’ and just appoint the one we like and think they should have voted for.
I notice you’ve abandoned the Ph D label, did they refund your money?

@retire05

OK, arschloch, show where I ever said I supported Cruz.

Well, let’s see… The only other far-right conservative candidate that was running was Santorum who was eliminated very early in the process. The accepted and adopted rules for the first vote require the nominee to win at least eight states to be considered eligible for the first vote so that leaves out Rubio and Kasich. Cruz and Trump are the only ones who succeeded in that. You are demanding that they change the rules on the first vote to unbind the delegates,. because you want a conservative nominee instead of Trump, Cruz is the only one who stayed in the race and came even halfway to getting enough delegates, so that leaves… Nobody.

You must have someone in mind or you wouldn’t be wasting our time for so long on this subject. OK. I’ll bite, who is this mystery super conservative who won eight states, that you’re holding out to be nominated in the first vote once the delegates are unbound?

@Dennis Bonnette:

Still, I maintain that the common good of the nation obliges them in conscience to use that power to assure that voters are not forced to choose …

I fail to comprehend what divine power has endowed you with the heavenly authority to dictate what is “for the common good of the nation ” Your ego is writing checks you can’t cash. The Republican base does not appear to agree with you on what serves the “common good.” They seem to think that Trump will “serve the common good” better than Cruz.

No, DB. You are far too arrogant and pompous to be telling the rest of us “what must be done for the common good.” We reject your aloof snobbery. You are no better than the GOPe, who has been playing at that game since the first Bush presidency.

@Richard Wheeler:

You must have missed where Trump got 50% of the total Hispanic vote in the New York primary alone. I posted it here once for you, I’m not going to look it up again. Trump’s bringing in voters that the GOPe has been longing for has been reported on various news sites. Go ahead and check out the demographics for yourself. It’s fact.

@Ditto:

The only other far-right conservative candidate that was running was Santorum who was eliminated very early in the process.

And your point being? I asked you to show where I have ever said I supported Cruz. You give me who you think was a “far-right” conservative. Not an answer.

The accepted and adopted rules for the first vote require the nominee to win at least eight states to be considered eligible for the first vote so that leaves out Rubio and Kasich. Cruz and Trump are the only ones who succeeded in that.

That would be Rule 40. A rule that you would have claimed was an “accepted and adopted” rule in 2012, only it was changed in Tampa. Ding, ding, ding. You still don’t know how the system works.

You are demanding that they change the rules on the first vote to unbind the delegates,.

Where? Show where I said I wanted the rule changed.

because you want a conservative nominee instead of Trump, Cruz is the only one who stayed in the race and came even halfway to getting enough delegates, so that leaves… Nobody.

Of course I want a conservative candidate. And that ain’t Trump. But it doesn’t eliminate the fact that you accuse me of something you can’t prove.

You must have someone in mind or you wouldn’t be wasting our time for so long on this subject.

Talk about wasting time. Count the number of your entries on this thread alone bashing those who see Trump for the fraud he is. You’re as juvenile as the 7th grade school bully who tries to beat others up because they hold an opinion contrary to your own. You’re actually a classic example of a supporter of a candidate who is also a bully, and you relish in that position. You’re angry at the state of government leadership and want to burn the whole damn thing down with a man who is not fit to shine Santorum’s shoes and are mad because voters like me are unwilling to furnish you the match.

OK. I’ll bite, who is this mystery super conservative who won eight states, that you’re holding out to be nominated in the first vote once the delegates are unbound?

I suggest you read the history of political national conventions. I also suggest you learn that the first rule of debate puts the onus on you to prove your claims.

@Ditto:

You must have missed where Trump got 50% of the total Hispanic vote in the New York primary alone.

Where are you getting those stats? From the Trump campaign?

Exit polls show that the Democrats took 14% of the registered Hispanic vote while Republicans took 3%. And you seem to ignore that New York will represent a solid loss for Trump as Hillary garnered twice as many primary votes as Trump did. He will lose NY to Hillary.

Since RT appears so upset about the absence of reference to my doctorate, I put it back — in spades.

Trump supporters here refuse to confront three salient truths:

First, the delegates at the GOP convention, acting as a whole, have the power to overrule the Chairman and/or do anything they want respecting candidates and delegates. They may refuse to seat delegations that are challenged (and have done so in the past), may change the 8 state requirement, may unbind all delegates on any and all ballots, and anything else pertaining to the platform and rules of the convention. Trump supporters may call “foul,” but all objective observers recognize these evident facts.

Second, as Donald Trump would say, it is an “absolute disgrace” that the national parties appear in the process of nominating two candidates who are both manifestly unfit to hold the office of President. Both Trump and Clinton have massive negatives in polling and a majority of voters want another choice. The national debate is over which one is more corrupt and unfit, not over which one is best fitted to lead the nation. I won’t waste another paragraph depicting Trump’s well-known deficiencies. Hillary’s are equally infamous. We are literally risking the future course of the Republic, while people throw tantrums over turf wars.

Third, the only way to give voters an honorable alternative in November is either by the respective parties refusing to nominate these unfit candidates or by a third party being formed that can derail the whole process into the House of Representatives. That is the reason I have advocated that the delegates to the GOP convention use their legal powers to rid the nation of Trump and replace him with a worthy candidate.

Trump supporters can raise all the peripheral objections to these alternatives they wish, but none of these address the substantial problem the nation faces. This is not a question of playing games with party rules. It is a question of permitting the election of candidates who will put the nation at risk.

Frankly, I don’t care what names I am called for pointing to these facts. With incalculable debt leading us to an impending Dollar crash, with a foreign policy in shreds and the likelihood of war with Russia and/or China looming, with government overreach infringing the very privacy of our children’s bathrooms — this is no time to risk the future of the Republic with two clearly unfit and corrupt nominees. Doesn’t anyone see that the salvation of the Republic “trumps” all other subordinate issues?

No, I am not looking down on others like a smug, superior academic. I am looking up like an ordinary citizen who is gravely fearful for his children and grandchildren and for the future of this wonderful experiment in democracy.

@Dennis Bonnette:

Nominating a sow’s ear when there is a legal and moral alternative is not fulfilling the duty of a delegate to serve his conscience and the common good of the nation. They don’t have to find a silk purse

They’ve been casting their nets far and wide and can’t seem to find a silk purse. Why don’t ;you tell them who it is, Mr Bonnette and then they could just get him and it would all be wrapped up. Where has this “mr ideal candidate” been all my life?

Oh wow, now he’s a Dr twice. A real doctor knows you don’t use both Dr and Ph D with the name. I didn’t see the spades.

@Dr. Dennis Bonnette, Ph.D.:

First, the delegates at the GOP convention, acting as a whole, have the power to overrule the Chairman and/or do anything they want respecting candidates and delegates.

NO, THEY DO NOT You repeating incorrect information will not change the rules. According to the opinion piece Curly wrote, the delegates are bound by the rules of their individual state party. If their is a valid reason to not vote for the delegate elected by vote, then they can vote their conscience, but just not liking a candidate is not a valid reason. Being convicted of a crime might be a reason, but personality is known when the votes are cast and is not a valid reason. So just swallow your bitter pill, go back to your dictatorship and leave the American system alone.

@ Dennis Bonnette.: No, I am not looking down on others like a

smug, superior academic.

Is there such a thing? Where would one be located? I’ve never run across one of those.

as Donald Trump would say, it is an “absolute disgrace” that the national parties appear in the process of nominating two candidates

Why would Donald Trump say that?
You keep referring to both of these candidates as if they are gloom and doom. While it is actually impossible to have a worse president than the one in the office presently, Hillary would come close. Trump will be a breath of fresh air to the office. At least more of the people casting votes agree that he is the one they prefer. You can stop your childish rants about creating a dictatorship here and just lean to live with our American system.

@Redteam:

First, the delegates at the GOP convention, acting as a whole, have the power to overrule the Chairman and/or do anything they want respecting candidates and delegates.

NO, THEY DO NOT You repeating incorrect information will not change the rules.

My God, RT, stop arguing parliamentarian rules that you clearly know nothing about.

According to the opinion piece Curly wrote, the delegates are bound by the rules of their individual state party.

Curly was discussing the rules as voted on in 2012. Those rules are subject to not only amendments, but a full revision as written by the Permanent Rules Committee and voted on by the body of the whole at the 2016 convention.

Since you’re so smart, perhaps you would like to quote the section of Robert’s where one committee can bind a future committee?

@retire05:

DittoOK. I’ll bite, who is this mystery super conservative who won eight states, that you’re holding out to be nominated in the first vote once the delegates are unbound?

I suggest you read the history of political national conventions.

A complete evasion of my question. Who is this mystery super conservative who won eight states, that you’re holding out to be nominated in the first vote once the delegates are unbound? If not Cruz, then who is it you want for the nomination?

@retire05:

Where are you getting those stats?

Donald Trump overwhelmingly wins Hispanic vote in New York City

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Despite calling for a “big, beautiful” wall at the Southern border (which Mexico will pay for), the deportation of all illegal immigrants, and labeling some Mexicans rapists and drug dealers, businessman Donald Trump won more than half of the GOP Hispanic vote in New York City, according to exit polls.

Mr. Trump won the Soundview, Castle Hill area in the Bronx with 100 percent of the vote, according to the New York Times vote tracker. That area has a relatively diverse population, primarily consisting of blacks and Latin Americans. In the Jackson Heights, Queens, area where many Hispanics reside, Mr. Trump won precincts ranging from 41 percent of the vote, to 87 percent of the vote, with most precincts clocking in above 60 percent for Mr. Trump.

All told, in areas with at least a 50 percent Hispanic population, Mr. Trump won 61 percent of the vote within the city, according to the New York Times vote tracker. It’s an unexpected victory to many political pundits and establishment Republicans who were sure, Mr. Trump would repeal the Hispanic vote through his bombastic statements and immigration plan.

Donald Trump Won Hispanic Vote in New York City

Analysis of the New York Times‘ vote tracker shows Trump won 61 percent in areas with at least a 50 percent Hispanic population.

“It’s an unexpected victory to many political pundits and establishment Republicans who were sure Mr. Trump would [repel] the Hispanic vote through his bombastic statements and immigration plan,” the Washington Times’ Kelly Riddell reports.

According to Riddell, in a poll taken prior to the New York primary, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Ohio Gov. John Kasich were favored over Trump by the Hispanic community.

“New York is Mr. Trump’s home state, and Mr. Cruz’s ‘New York values’ comment could’ve hurt him worse than anyone predicted. But it’s still interesting Mr. Trump pulled out a win with this demographic, and it might mean — despite what the polls are saying and most in the political and punditry class — that he’s not doomed in the general,” Riddell adds.