Mark Levin today,
Skip the article and go right to the audio. Levin isn’t angry here at all, very matter-of-fact on the smash-mouth road of Trump.
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
Ha! Trump and Nixon were pikers when it comes to personal insults.
http://triblive.com/mobile/2508714-81/jefferson-adams-2012-dick-founding-neither-polman-president-wrote-1800
Meanwhile, from the Adams camp:
Merely calling your rival “nasty” seems kinda tame in the general scheme of things, though one might be a little critical of the lack of imagination in the effort, comparatively speaking…
You may think that was enough, but you would be wrong:
Ahhh, good times, good times…
Oops, perhaps I should have prefaced with a trigger warning for the weak of heart.
My bad.
The Nixon comparison isn’t about name-calling (btw 1972, I turned 18 in June and voted for the first time that Nov — FOR Nixon)
but about populism v conservatism — the “I can get things done” v “I adhere to conservative principles.”
I don’t doubt Trump will get things done — but what things?
and I certainly understand why his populism is so, well, popular.
He’s just not a conservative.
My favorite part of the Levin show was when he pointed out that unlike Trump, none of the other candidates had ever filed for bankruptcy.
Yeah, as if any other of the candidates had ever run a business, much less 500 of’em…
I will agree Cruz is MORE conservative, as you and I define the term, than Trump, but I do think Trump is conservative, as defined by loving America and wanting it to be what it once was before the dirty progressives turned it into the socialist paradise it is now.
My last declaration; this election I’m a single issue guy, and that’s borders and immigration. Trump is the best bet on that issue, IMHO. Enough said.
-I wasn’t old enough to vote in ’72, Darleen [I’m not bragging], but I put a Nixon/Agnew bumper sticker on my loose-leaf notebook and caught a lot of crap at school [yeah, I was kinda Alex P. Keaton before being Alex P. Keaton was Cool].
Worked in a very, very minor role in the ’76 Reagan Campaign.
Cast my first vote in 1980 Primary for The Raygun – damn happy about that.
-I just listened to the whole Levin broadcast: Trump is making a huge mistake going after Ted Cruz the way he is. It may work with a certain type of voter, but he’s killing himself with many conservatives.
I, like Mr. Levin, was planning to vote for Trump if he got the Nomination, for reasons I’ll explain another time, but not now. I’ll just stay home again, I think.
Refugium inveniemus in provinciis
[Find refuge in the several states]
We can thank Richard Nixon for the EPA, among other beauties of the administrative state. No one loves administrating quite like an administrator. Why follow the laws when you can just make them up?
Great things, Darleen. Gotten through great deals. It’ll be fantastic. You’re gonna love it. You’ll see.
as if any other of the candidates had ever run a business
If running a successful business was the sine qua non of a successful Presidency, then Herbert Hoover would have been our greatest President.
(That came up on Levin last night too)
In fairness to the administrator, sdferr, that’s what happens when the Legislative leaves the details of the law up to the Executive.
This goes to the question of what conservatism is — and of course there are many different kinds of conservatism. There is the conservatism of temperament that leads corporations to donate millions to Hillary Clinton. There is the emotional type of conservatism that holds, “my country, right or wrong,” and obligates its subscriber to support government policy regardless of what it is.
What we here have tended to mean by conservatism, however, is a matter of principle that Jeff has more precisely called “classical liberalism.” Trump is the opposite of this, and so long as there is a classical liberal — Cruz — with a shot at winning this nomination, I will support him and no other. Nor will I entertain as-yet unfounded assertions of “he can’t win” (which are nothing more than the flip side of McCain’s and Romney’s “electability” claim or Hillary’s “inevitability”) as reasons to abandon him.
What happens if Trump’s unprincipled “conservatism” bests Cruz’s classical liberalism, I will decide if the time comes. But the more Trump and his supporters trash my guy, the less likely their guy is to have my support in November.
Reagan was a flag-waver, yes — and he presented a vision of American greatness restored. But it was always presented as depending on the wisdom of the Founders and the principles enshrined in the Constitution.
And while even he strayed from those principles from time to time, at least there was no doubt whether he knew what they were.
Everyone agrees that Cruz is more conservative than Trump.
That’s not the issue in this election.
This election is about demolishing the worm-ridden, termite-infested, back-stabbing establishment and pile-driving I beams into the bedrock in order to stabilize the foundation in preparation for rebuilding on that classical foundation.
So expanding on Lee’s thought, this is a two-issue election – burning the motherfuckers out of the halls of power and protecting our nation from the invaders.
If we don’t do that, we’re not going to have anything left after Hillary gets through necrophelia-izing our dead asses properly with SCOTUS appointments. And I say Hillary because my hero Cruz has no crossover appeal whatsoever.
How is President Trump supposed to make those great deals, fantastic deals, he’s always talking about if he burns out the motherfuckers?
Since when do you make deals with bureaucratic agencies?
As president, you tell them what to do.
For a specific answer we turn to Palin were she head of the Dept of Energy, “I would get rid of it and I would let the states start having more control over the lands that are within their boundaries…”
That’s burning out the motherfuckers.
I gotta say, for the first time I think Trump has said something indefensible, that being ‘Cruz is worse than Hillary’
Having said that, I’m still going to stick with him for now, largely because it doesn’t change why I support him in the first place. Also, I agree with parallel that I don’t think Cruz has a chance in a general election. He generates support from the more conservative side of the Republican party, but there isn’t much enthusiasm from anywhere else. That concept will probably be distasteful to his supporters, but it’s a reality in American politics, and in this election I just don’t believe another Ivy League lawyer with a lifetime in DC is going to fire up enough people to beat a unified left, which they will be if Cruz is the candidate.
One other point, about Trumps attacks on Cruz; this is the norm during the primaries, and, for example, Romney trashed his competition in the primary worse than he did in the general, but the point is, he won the primary. That’s the first step. What is really different this time, and I’ve never seen it before, is the merciless abuse Trump SUPPORTERS have had to endure, from everybody not Trump supporters, maybe especially from Cruz supporters. We’ve been called everything from stupid to KKK. And much worse. So you’ll have to excuse me if I’m not to upset with Trump going after Cruz, just be glad YOU aren’t being called an asshole just for supporting him.
How you gonna get rid of the DOE without cutting a deal with the Motherfuckers down the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue? Executive order it away? Impoundment?
another Ivy League lawyer with a lifetime in DC
Since when is 4 years a lifetime?
unified left
They’re no more unified than we are at the moment.
You’re right Ernst, let’s pull for another 4 to 8 years of status quo since it’s worked so well for the past 16.
Check back with y’all in another 6 months.
Coupla three things: First, the way I remember it, Romney trashing his competition consisted of Romney surrogates questioning everybody else’s conservative bona fides. Second, Romney (& surrogates) trashing the competition might have had a small part to play in those missing 5 million votes that cost him the election. Third, this propensity for trashing the intra-party competition worse than the inter-party competition tends to leave one wondering about who the real enemy is.
I’m just saying that I don’t hear Trump saying he’s going to get his Frank Slade on.
And given the the GOPe is signalling that, while it loathes Cruz, it merely dislikes Trump, I don’t think the GOPe hears Trump saying that either.
My bad, he worked for the Federal Trade Commission and then in the W. Bush administration, and now senator, but I was wrong to say a lifetime.
Still…
Addressing your other points, yeah, the candidates attacked each other; I was never attacked as a voter because I didn’t support someone else’s candidate like is happening now.
Second, I think those missing votes were largely a myth, Romney got more votes than McCain did four years earlier, and to the extent there were people staying home, that probably had more to do with the establishment pushing Mr. Romneycare on US when Obamacare was the big issue at the time than the tone of the primaries.
Third, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect ten politicians competing for the top nomination to look like a friendly poker game. At least I don’t think it ever has before.
>At the FTC, Cruz’s agenda could have been written by Milton Friedman.
Cruz promoted economic liberty and fought government efforts to rig the marketplace in favor of special interests. Most notably, Cruz launched an initiative to study the government’s role in conspiring with established businesses to suppress e-commerce. This initiative ultimately led the U.S. Supreme Court to open up an entire industry to small e-tailers. Based on his early support of disruptive online companies, Cruz has some grounds to call himself the “Uber of American politics.”
Moreover, and perhaps surprising to some, Cruz sought and secured a broad, bipartisan consensus for his agenda. Almost all of Cruz’s initiatives received unanimous support among both Republicans and Democrats.<
https://pjmedia.com/blog/what-no-one-seems-to-know-about-ted-cruzs-past/
Cruz is worse than Hillary Clinton. Without question. Cruz favors the Constitution of the United States above all other schemes of government.
Others don’t.
Not complicated.
Well hell, the thing is nearly 100 years old, and written by white slavers! Whatta expect!
Word
“How you gonna get rid of the DOE without cutting a deal with the Motherfuckers down the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue? Executive order it away? Impoundment? ”
See, this is the kinda circular shit that keeps me snickering even though I know it’s wrong during these trying times.
Just yesterday I was laughing because the new story line was Trump is establishment because he was going to negotiate with congress. Even Levin today was cutting him down for saying he would work with McConnell.
But we all know that’s the way our government is set up.
Seriously, I wonder about myself. I shouldn’t be having this much fun.
[…] GOPe like Senator Burr and others who are trashing Ted Cruz? If you are going to take Trump on, take him on the issues and against trashing Cruz (which is what Mark Levin is […]
[…] Being Paid $50 An Hour By Germany’s Socialist Party #dankeantifa #Hitlerian Protein Wisdom: Trump 2016 – Deja Vu Nixon vs. Reagan 1968 Shot In The Dark: “Nobody Wants To Take Your Guns!” The Gateway Pundit: Unvaccinated […]
Well, I haven’t been around in a while, but I see I’m still pretty much copacetic with everyone.
Except for this parallax fella.
Oh well. I always need a few people to disagree with.
Have I missed the conversations about “optics” yet? That’s my favorite.
I will add that I think Trump’s “elect-ability” is a ruse. Remember how liberals used to go on about how McCain was a republican they could vote for?
Ba haaa haaaa haaa …
And we (well, I didn’t, and a lot her didn’t either) FELL FOR IT.
Then it was Romney. So dapper.
And now it’s Trump (but only because we’ve so flatly refused their boy JEB!)
But the left has been playing us this whole time with Trump.
OH NO- PLEASE DON’T THROW ME IN THE BRIER PATCH.
Indeed, the Donald may be willing to make a deal with the GOPe, but the very fact that the GOPe *has* to make a deal, rather than just get its lose-more-slowly way rubber stamped as it does now, is itself refreshing.
Then again, I still prefer Cruz.
Might it be that Palin, Schlafly and some others who have endorsed Trump done so for one very simple reason, namely, because they think he can actually *win* and Cruz cannot?
I will add that I think Trump’s “elect-ability” is a ruse. Remember how liberals used to go on about how McCain was a republican they could vote for?
Ba haaa haaaa haaa …
And we (well, I didn’t, and a lot her didn’t either) FELL FOR IT.
Then it was Romney. So dapper.
And now it’s Trump (but only because we’ve so flatly refused their boy JEB!)
But the left has been playing us this whole time with Trump.
OH NO- PLEASE DON’T THROW ME IN THE BRIER PATCH.
But Trump does have one key difference–all his rhetoric indicates he just won’t Amnesty Hispander. And IIRC, that was and is a sine qua non of the GOPe.
I could see the GOPe “endorsing” and then undermining him. See “Wilson, Pete” in California.
Trump has a RINOey past? So did Wilson.
Trump has more than a “RINOey” past.
Not just the money he donated (among other things) – but what those donations represented.
Business as usual.
And I’m supposed to respect that?
But NOW he’s different. Because …. ?Oh. Right. Because he wants to be president.
What you’re forgetting is that the GOPe *like* to make deals, just like Trump. Who’s as vague on details as he is overflowing with the superlatives.
That sounds like my hometown newspaper when we got “shall-issue” concealed carry…
Like I said before, I prefer The Ted over The Donald. Totally.
But I can see why some have endorsed The Donald, and it is simple: Because he can *win*.
Trump donated to their side in the past? News flash: what we have in our government is a legal form of a Mafia protection racket, and the big buiness class regularly gives protection money to the winner. Sad, but it is what it is.
What you’re forgetting is that the GOPe *like* to make deals, just like Trump. Who’s as vague on details as he is overflowing with the superlatives.
Really? I DON’T see the GOPe as making deals. I see them as petulantly withdrawing support and even helping the enemy when their primary candidate does not win, as some Tea Party primary House and Senate candidates painfully learned. (That some of the Tea Party primary winners were Not Ready For Prime Time does not change that fact.)
But NOW he’s different. Because …. ?Oh. Right. Because he wants to be president.
But if he lays his cards all out in advance, guess what? He loses at “The Art Of The Deal”!!!
I suppose it is a calculated risk to support him, but like LBascom, I can see how some people are just do disgusted with the Immigration issue that they will put their faith in The Donald.
so disgusted that is. Urgh, typos!
For a specific answer we turn to Palin were she head of the Dept of Energy, “I would get rid of it and I would let the states start having more control over the lands that are within their boundaries…”
That’s burning out the motherfuckers.
A Secretary Of The Interior Sarah Palin would make ecoweenie heads explode in a Trump Administration, I would give you that.
Just wondering, but when this is over, would The Donald take Ted aside and say “Sorry, nothing personal, it’s just politics….” and then make Ted an offer he couldn’t refuse? Veep? Supreme Court Justice?
Yes, I am speculating.
I’ve never really understood that “nothing personal” about the personal attacks thing myself.
Dealwise, you need to look past the the quadrennial silly season and focus on the sausage factory that is D.C. Deal making is how we got into this mess in the first place.
Levin noted tonight that Trump was talking about the phone calls he’s been getting from establishment types. So the negotiating seems to have started.
That’s because the Tea Party types are the GOPe’s enemy. They only make deals with fellow “ins,” like Harry Reid.
That’s because the Tea Party types are the GOPe’s enemy. They only make deals with fellow “ins,” like Harry Reid.
Those aren’t deals—those are abject capitulations.
And say what you will about The Donald; he would deal with Harry Reid better than John “Orange Crush” Boehner or Mitch “Yertle The Turtle” McConnell. His ego would demand it of him.
I have little faith anymore, but I do have faith in THAT.
You know that, and I know that…
There is an Establican born every minute, and Trump can see them coming from beyond the event horizon. Since he has no more classical liberal principles than that damn liar Mush McConnell, electing Trump would mean losing, and not necessarily more slowly.
And I say Hillary because my hero Cruz has no crossover appeal whatsoever.
yes yes he’s very narrow
he casts a slightly wider net than santorum
Ah yes, crossover appeal –President Romney’s secret weapon.
His ego would demand that the deal be good for him, not that it would advance any conservative agenda or be grounded in any conservative principle.
I rather imagine Trump’s “great” deal on immigration reform will look suspiciously similiar to the same grand bargains we’ve been opposing since ’06.
One of the curious things thus far is the fact the William Kristol is opposed to Trump. Because you’d think that Kristol’s national greatness conservatism would be something that could be projected onto Trump –assuming Trump didn’t embrace it of his own accord.
Maybe Trump should try to arrange a meeting with Kristol and wow him with the crease in his pants.
“His ego would demand that the deal be good for him, not that it would advance any conservative agenda or be grounded in any conservative principle. ”
Sure, sure. That’s an easy call because of his horns and tail. It’s so obvious.
I’m just glad we’ve moved on from how he’s really just running for to get Hillary elected. I always thought that one silly, you know, ‘cuz of the huge (yuuuge even) outsized ego. That no one running for president ever has. Except for the unprincipled, dastardly greedy Trump upstart.
Mr. Trump will try hard to do good things for america
we haven’t seen a president like that in something like 30 years
What would be a nice change is to have a nationalist instead of a globalist.
Thing about people talking about Trumps ego is I think that’s what gives me the most hope. That is what will compel the man to back up his promis to make America great again.
i agree one hundred percent which leaves absolutely no room for doubt
100% x 0 = 0
” I was never attacked as a voter because I didn’t support someone else’s candidate like is happening now.”
Lee,
I’d say for the most part people here are challenging your views/assessments regarding Trump, not attacking you personally.
My concern with Trump is: Given how vested he is to the project; just how much will a President Trump be willing to trade, to build a wall on the Southern border?
Will Universal government healthcare be an acceptable trade-off? Yeah he’s been critical of Obamacare on the campaign trail but I could see him allowing the a coalition of Democrats and squishy Republicans to create a bigger “better” healthcare system dubbed Trumpcare.
Ted Cruz would never make that kind of trade.
The people I’ve known with the biggest egos are also the quickest to excuse themselves for breaking promises.
Teddy Roosevelt Mallach takes the belt to George Will…
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/333608-2/
Pretty much gives me a smile, to see the GOE getting strangled, Trump having brought the yuuuge tree.
What would be a nice change is to have a nationalist instead of a globalist.
THIS. What is it exactly that we all hate about the GOPe? In large measure, it is its “globalism”.
The GOPe doesn’t hate America innately like the Left does, far from it. But it keeps the borders open, and hamstrings American sovereignty as well. For different reasons, but it does so.
Open borders and “free trade” are the Multiculturalism Of The Right.
Godspeed, ronnyfoot!
“I’d say for the most part people here are challenging your views/assessments regarding Trump, not attacking you personally.”
I’d agree with that Danger. Here. Elsewhere though not so much. I think it may be getting better though, as people realize insult isn’t very persuasive.
It’s kinda like when the establishment was calling the TEA Party hairy footed coo coo birds. Not only did they alienate and drive away their voters, they aren’t likely to get them back.
Hello president Trump, and FU to the political elite…
I y
It’s great funny that Trump can say openly his followers are such true-believing morons they wouldn’t leave him if he shot people on 5th Avenue, and in true-believing fashion Trump’s followers take that as a compliment.
If I’d been the interviewer I would’ve been tempted to say, “Go for it.”
Which is the magnificent thing about comedy: He just did.
It’s funnier still that fucked up asshole motherfucking evil cowardly pretend intellectual dickwads bullshit themselves when they don’t understand something.
Not ha ha funny though, queer funny.
Ok, my point being made about name calling (I hope), let me try this:
Nobody imagines this is a threat, so it’s a joke. The punchline? Trumps supporters don’t want another Washington insider ruling them, and without Trump, there is nowhere else to go. There is a huge (yuuuge even) swath of the country that is not represented by the politicians, and Trump has stepped up and saiid I will. Everyone else is committed to calling these people morons. So what do you suppose Trump supporters will do?
March is the ordinary presumption.
Definitive argument on Ace’s blog for voting Trump over Rubio, who appears to be the GOPee choice:
…my priority is reforming the GOP into an institution which actually serves voters and not just the Chamber of Commerce and a dozen deep-pocketed, socially-liberal mega-donors, but a party that, when working class people tell them Disney is abusing the H-1B program to hire foreign workers and fire American ones, actually gives a shit, and does not just run over to Disney and ask for a campaign donation.
So for me, it has to be Cruz, or Trump. I’d prefer Cruz, as I keep saying. I’ll take Trump, though, because, while he’s kind of stupid and temperamentally unsuited for the job, he would nevertheless also serve as a repudiation of the Establishment’s Corporate Client “Conservatism.”
The GOP is nakedly now a “clientist” party the same as the Democrat Party. They just have different clients.
And those clients aren’t us.
Some things the GOP does I don’t mind, per se, but I object to the GOP making them a priority, while they give us Fake Votes and Failure Theater on our priorities.
On a related note: I was phone polled today, predominantly about a proposed new ballot initiative, a tax for a new public service, which would be a “211” line for the quick dispatch of social service workers, just like the 911 line for real emergencies and the 311 line for lesser police matters. The tone of the poll made me assume this poll was set up by liberal Democrats, and this is Cali, so that is a fair bet.
But then, I was asked two questions:
–Would I vote for Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio?
–Would I vote for Bernie Sanders or Marco Rubio?
No other GOP candidate was suggested.
It made me think the fix was in for Marco.
Everybody is calling every other candidate a giant poopyhead, and their supporters too.
Which is going to make it awkward come general election time.
I’m not contemplating what I will do if Ted Cruz doesn’t win the nomination, because in my opinion the meme that he can’t win is coming from the political consultants who still dream of a Rubio-led ticket, if not Jeb.
I’m not saying the rank-and-file types who’ve picked up that meme are as stupid as the consultants. If they gather such an implication it would give lie to the insult.
Rubio makes sense as the establishment candidate the same way Romney did.
Last election was about Obamacare, this one is about immigration. Think about it…
I think it’s pretty clear the Establishment has many sects. The donors are coming to terms with a Trump nomination but the consultants don’t see anything in it for them.
Remember, the donors have been pushing amnesty longer than millennial voters have been alive. They can wait for another shot, if they have to.
McGehee, I really think it was McCain who started the trend of attacking the voters, and the rest of the political class piled on in response to the TEA Party movement. You wacko bird Visigoth you.
Having said that, at the beginning of the Trump phenom, most Trump supporters were also Cruz supporters, and really most probably thought Trump would be out pretty quickly and his support would go to Cruz. What happened though is everyone not supporting Trump, including those in the Cruz camp, took great delight in telling Trump supporters how stupid and moronic they are for supporting an obvious con man and Hillary stalking horse. It was an awful strategy for convincing people to join their effort, and the months of name calling have only hardened resolve with no more chance of pursuation than calling TEA Party people racists.
I’m convinced if Trump had not entered the race illegal immigration and Syrian refugees wouldn’t even have been discussed. Instead we would be talking about how much we should expand h1 visas and the details for a pathway to citizenship deal. Still, after all these years, in PC platitudes with great difidence to the MSM. regardless to what degree Trump is conservative, he has done more to advance conservatism in four months than any politician in thirty years, by teaching the right media approval and PC bullshit are chains voluntarily worn. For that at leastTrump, and his staunch supporters deserve some respect.
“The people I’ve known with the biggest egos are also the quickest to excuse themselves for breaking promises.”
Trumps ego is likely to write checks we (collectively) can’t cash.
Immigration and the debt are two sides of the same coin. Either in concert or independently they will lead to our ruin.
Being Anti-pc is what drives Trumps success. His immigration policy is only a part of that.
I’d just like a little more steak with my cake.
By Trump’s success I mean popularity, at least in the GOP primary polls.
This.
Cake, with a little more Frank.
Trump presented an immigration plan months ago, and Jeff Sessions endorsed it. All I’ve heard from the others is excuses for past poor performance on the issue.
If you need guarantees, I can’t help you.
Seriously, people are beginning to notice.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/01/26/2863193/
No, they’re not. Eyes closed and ears stoppered: just another go along get along statist.
Cake without steak.
Yeah, like Reagan made deals with O’Neal and we got amnesty? H. Bush made deals and we got more taxes? Like W. Bush made deals and we got NCLB and Medicare D?
Or, like Newt made deals and we got welfare reform?
The question isn’t whether there will be deals, but whether they will be good deals.
Here’s what I posted at installment:
LBascom
Something the smart set in the conservative movement might want to think about; Trump is running in the republican party, as a republican, advancing republicanism (regardless what he said 17 years ago, I’m talking now), with a very good chance of winning the presidency with the votes of many democrats as well as we knuckleheaded grass root republicans.
Now, say you are newly elected president Trump, that won DESPITE the GOP, despite his advocating republican ideas, and with the support of many disenfranchised democrats as well as disenfranchised republicans. Do you think he will feel much loyalty to a party that faught him every step of the way?
All this BS about how Trump is a lying, conman democrat in disguise being thrown at him by people in his own party…might end up being a self fulfilling prophecy.
Trump will make the best deals for America he can, with the people that will work with him. If the conservatives won’t, they will have no one to blame but themselves if he works with others that will.
At instapundit. Stupid autocorrect!
More food for thought from Ace, and it makes dreadful sense.
In other words, back Cruz. If he falters, you can always fall back to The Donald.
I don’t know…but it seems to me there’s whiffs of Gaius Marius, Sulla, and Caesar swirling around The Donald(tm).
The stink of those around Hillary is strong, BTW.
Why? Because asking for a Constitutionalist is asking too much?
The Constitution is 100 years old and was written in Upper Middle Frisian.
Alpha male. He fights! Except when he runs away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8
If you’re going to fry up a Frisian the upper middle part is the best I think.
“I don’t know…but it seems to me there’s whiffs of Gaius Marius, Sulla, and Caesar swirling around The Donald ”
I see him as an older chunkier Alcibiades type. Take that Syracuse.
It’s a bad business to be accused of emasculating Herms. Poor little defenseless Herms.
‘Alcibiades’ – that works.
I like my fried Frisian with a frisson of fission.
Or perhaps a soupçon of soup.
What would be a nice change is to have a nationalist instead of a globalist.
Why? Because asking for a Constitutionalist is asking too much?
Toe-May-toe, Toe-Mah-Toe. Certainly the globalism being foisted upon us isn’t constitutional.
Was the TPP Bill Cruz championed constitutional? I would suppose so, not sure. That probably makes me too stupid to vote. Still, from what I understand it’s bad for America and good for countries not America.
By the way, here’s an article I found interesting:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/16/diana-west-what-is-a-conservative-what-defines-the-gop/
It’s ok to support a statist like Trump. Hell, all the Democrats do that all the time and they aren’t stupid. Just ask them, they’ll tell us so.
I was talking about my stupidity for not knowing if TPP is strictly constitutional, as you well know. You TDS people are becoming experts at misdirection and/or incomprehension though, so I expect nothing else from you.
Hell, I’m so unlearned I woulda thought someone renouncing his foreign citizenship at age 42 to run for president would fail the natural born requirement, but apparently that part of the constitution is very malible and can be changed by a simple majority vote in congress. Maybe seven an executive order, I don’t know.
So I guess it’s true, what they say about Trump being Obama in whiteface that is.
Trump Derangement Syndrome? Is that what the True Believers are feeding their persecution complexes?
You were saying something about expert misdirection and/or incomprehension?
The Diana West piece was interesting. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
I didn’t know she was a Buchananite.
Ann Coulter certainly got it wrong 4years ago pushing Romney when Obamacare was the issue, IMHO, but she’s inside my head this time.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/01/27/ann-coulter-i-was-hoping-for-a-taller-honest-man/
Most likely for the same reason Trump is.
Oh, and speaking of Tailgunner Joe, Ann.
Read the whole thing
Yes, that reason being illegal immigration.
I understand that Trump likes to talk about it.
Again, he presented a plan, Jeff Sessions endorsed it. Where’s Cruz’s plan, now that he is no longer talking about expanding H-1b visas.
I guess I’ll have to plead ignorance to Trump’s plan, which I’m sure is fabulous.
I was vaguely aware that Sessions had endorsed Trump, but hadn’t heard why.
Must be because of all that noise Cruz is making about his citizenship. Trump was wrong to let himself get distracted by that.
If Jeff were still hanging out on his own blog, or if you were following him on Twitter, he’d answer something along the lines of, “Where it’s always been: on the record.”
Let the record show that I didn’t accuse you of being “unlearned” before linking this (last item).
That’s a crackerjack explanation, McGehee. Well done.
This is all academic, as conservatives don’t care because of Cruz and liberals don’t care because of being liberals, however, Just a few questions. Why did Cruz denounce his Canadian citizenship right before running if it didn’t matter? Why has he sealed his immigration records, did his mother renounce her American citizenship? What was the founders intent in using the term, and why bother using the term if the bar is so low it means only one parent is a citizen, all other circumstances being imaterial?
Being unlearned, I tried to learn so I went through this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2840767/posts as well as other reading.
Bottom line is there are three types of citizenship that are NOT natural born. The third being native born, that being a citizen via naturalization statutes conveying citizenship through the mother. https://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/four-ways-to-acquire-unnatural-citizenship1.pdf
“Why did Cruz denounce his Canadian citizenship right before running if it didn’t matter? ”
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20130818-ted-cruz-born-a-citizen-of-canada-under-the-countrys-immigration-rules.ece
Cruz only found out about his dual-citizenship with that article. Nine months later he denounced it because he found it embarrassing. Cruz was born in 1970. Canada began recognizing dual citizenships in 1977. The US still does not. Canada considers anyone born in Canada after 1947 a Canadian. The US does not. The US considers someone born to an American citizen in a foreign country to be born an American citizen. Canada considering you a citizen does not nullify US citizenship nor the other way around. However a process exists to renounce one’s citizenship. Ted followed that to discard his Canadian citizenship. This has no bearing on his being born to an American citizen mother in Canada and thus being a natural born American citizen. His Canadian birth certificate and his mother’s American birth certificate show that his mother was born in Delaware.
“Why has he sealed his immigration records, did his mother renounce her American citizenship?”
Immigration records? Cruz is not an immigrant to the US so has none here. Canada does not release immigrant records without good (criminal) reason due to confidentiality laws.
Cruz’s mother was an American citizen who had lived in Canada for three years when she had Ted. She had a residency and work permit implying she was NOT a Canadian citizen. To even apply for naturalized citizenship at that time required one to have lived in Canada for 5 years. So she was not even eligible to apply when Cruz was born. Furthermore if she renounced her American citizenship and became a naturalized Canadian citizen after his birth it would have no retroactive effect on his status.
The Cruz’s did technical work in their own company relating to seismic equipment used by oil exploration. In 1974 Cruz’s father left the family and moved to Texas. He reconsidered his decision after joining a church, reconciled with his wife, and brought Cruz and his mother to Texas from Alberta. This was before 1977 when dual citizenship became legal in Canada.
Cruz’ parents have appeared on Canadian eligible voter rolls from that time which have been brought up as PROOF but Canadian voter rolls, much like ours, often had many errors including listing of people ineligible to vote often taken from public records without proper review. So it is not proof of anything but bad Canadian record keeping from that period.
“What was the founders intent in using the term, and why bother using the term if the bar is so low it means only one parent is a citizen, all other circumstances being imaterial? ”
Are we going to do this under current law, originalism or what & why is the current law not the main issue since we are discussing eligibility and not natural birth policy’s merits?
I see we’re still stuck on
stupidthe subject of expert misdirection and/or incomprehension.Also, this birther shit, like racist dog whistles (WILLIE HORTON!!!!!) was spawned in Democrat circles.
I for one find it telling that whenever he starts feeling pressured, Trump starts behaving like a Democrat.
It isn’t the case that once a statist, always a statist. On the other hand, anyone genuinely persuaded that statism isn’t right, or good, or true about human governance in liberty would surely be capable of expressing the grounds of his own persuasion; showing some sign that statism as such doesn’t continue to reach into his every position, his every reaction to a problem posed. One who cannot express the breadth and depth of his own profound change of mind regarding these principle distinctions concerning his own and others’ liberty must remain suspect as a charlatan, a fraud, a con-artist, etc; just a man willing to dissemble, to utter lip service to the desires of others. One who avows he “loves the Constitution” should show some sign of that, some measure of understanding of it, some evidence of care for it. Lacking any such evidence, understanding, or care warrants a deep skepticism of his pretended claims. And a label: bullshitter.
Mark Levin: Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen
Andrew McCarthy:
What he said.
Thanks palaeomerus for the clear and respectful answer.