March 27, 2016

#CruzSexScandal

Rumors are not proof.

The National Enquirer piece only reports the existence of rumors.

A political candidate who is the target of a hit piece published by the close friend of an opponent is under no obligation to issue the precise form of denial demanded by supporters of said opponent.

About McG

The mustache abides.

Posted by McG @ 11:07am
209 comments | Trackback

Comments (209)

  1. Remains next to impossible to get past that whole “cui bono” business, ain’t it?

    The answer to which will generally be (in whatever other forms it comes), “not us”.

  2. Say McG, how about that little bird that landed on Bernie’s podium the other day?

    Rumor has it that the bird was a female mexican house finch [Haemorhous mexicanus], as we used to refer to them back in the day before that name became politically incorrect and they were re-named simply “house finch”.

    ‘ppears even that identification was untoward given Bernie’s predilections ’bout Mexican housewives, so the media quickly morphed the little avian into an English house sparrow, which isn’t (a sparrow) but a finch. Ah well, the birders know and keep the faith.

  3. the bird was a female mexican house finch

    I’m sure that bird is in this country illegally, and like others of its ilk is flocking to Bernie.

  4. heh, that gets to the juicy part of the story: that the surreptitiously substituted English House Sparrow is in fact an alien species now widely regarded as a pest.

  5. Does Donald Trump advance that theoretical ball down the field, or does he mostly ignore it for lack of interest or ignorance on his part, as having other more personal fish to fry?

    well that is a problem isn’t it. Exactly why it’s damn difficult to make a decision on voting.

    There are many who have a real problem voting for a sexual predator, no matter if his theoretical political ideology lines up with the ideals of the constitution! I understand that many can separate the sexual behavior from the political ideology. I tend to think predatory behavior is the “tell” on the nature of the man, and it ruins whatever political ideal I was hoping for.

    therefore (to bring it back around) – the only candidate who appeared to have 1. the right ideology, plus 2.) not a sexual predator = Cruz. But IF all of the candidates are pigs, AND none of them are ideologically pure, THEN… ?

    all of it is moot anyway because Cruz isn’t winning the nomination. I see the genius of this sort of smear being used on the only candidate who didn’t appear to be an asshole, sure. But… seems a little late in the game.

  6. Hang on a minute. Who is a sexual predator here? You can’t mean Trump by that — in spite of his own admissions of womanizing? Surely not, right, since you are already positing that Trump is the winner, despite that he is not the winner?

    And how does Ted Cruz become an asshole simply because someone else smears him with a falsehood or many falsehoods? Man (or woman), these leaps are most amazing.

    By the way, in terms of human marital interaction, who most takes an interest internally to a single coupling? Those inside it, right? And wouldn’t you expect that as with Mrs. Clinton, that whether Mrs. Cruz were suspicious or certain that her husband had been betraying her, and yet for her own reasons as in Clinton’s case had made the determination to “stick by” him despite her personal suffering and for reasons of personal power, would nevertheless have shown as Mrs. Clinton has long been known to show indications of her disgust with her meal ticket? But does Mrs. Cruz show any of that? Where? When?

    Ya got nothin’, fixit. Nothin’ at all.

  7. Ya got nothin’, fixit. Nothin’ at all.
    I think you misunderstand me. I don’t really care because my primary is over, i am only trying to decide what to do in november, and i am not going to lift a finger to defend the “honor” of Trump.
    Your position seems to be that Cruz may still win the nomination, despite polling in NY and CA before this NE smear.
    I think the NE story doesn’t matter at all (unless it is proven to be true, which looks highly doubtful).

  8. Oh, just stop. Both of them. Just. Stop.

    Circular firing squads at the GOP, while the Commiecrats advance.

    And why do I think that the Establicans pushed all this crap, so they could eliminate both candidates who upset their apple carts, have a brokered convention, and give us !Jeb! The Hispanderer?

  9. Ok, good, I may have misunderstood the primary object of your concern there. So let’s begin again and see if we can straighten out a few things.

    To begin, your concern is whether you yourself can vote for Cruz in Nov. given the hypothetical supposition that despite his presumed fidelity to the Constitution (presumed by others like myself) but because of or in light of the hypothetically proven case that he’d been faithless with his wife you’d have to choose no? “No,” again, because you regard marital faithlessness as tantamount to politically theoretical faithlessness to a system of government? Have I got that right? But that still, even that question for you is moot because Cruz will not win the nomination. And we don’t take up the question of a vote for Trump. I’m not clear exactly about that latter thing, but it just doesn’t seem to have come up — nor need it, for these purposes.

    I on the other hand, don’t take a position whether Cruz can (“may still” as you put it) win the nomination simply by (or because) stating that Trump has not yet won it. Fact is, I don’t know. I have no idea. I’m not a devoted poll follower, though I notice some from time to time — just don’t put much stock in them on theoretical grounds. (That is, people lie. People lie all the time, both the pollers and the polled. So there’s little there to trust from either end.) The actual accumulation of delegates to the convention from the primary processes I follow somewhat, though not obsessively I guess. Enough to know that it ain’t over now.

    That the Enquirer story matters in my opinion I’ve said already, though how much, with whom exactly, much like polling itself I cannot know. I see people spread that story. I see others believing it. So it matters to them. I see people like us discussing it — in some measure, wasting our time with it. Whether in the end this mattering is sufficient to carry the day for Trump, or even have the opposite effect and ruin his day, I cannot know. Simply put, it has many effects — the inattentions I’ve alluded to elsewhere (not least) included in those.

  10. I used to have Mexican Bird of Paradise plants growing in my yard along the fence. Now they are Pride of Barbabdos plants.

    Now we are all free.

    Hurrah.

  11. Sorry, Pride of Barbados.

    As we all know BarBabdos is a tiny moon orbiting the distant gas giant Michael Moore.

  12. “Sexual Predator” was a pretty egregious overreach there, missfixit.

    Curmudgeon’s point is well taken. But I think even the GOPe has realized at this point that a brokered convention would result in enough Trump and Cruz supporters sitting it out that they’d still lose.

    But maybe they don’t care, because losing to Hillary is better for them than winning with either Cruz or Trump. Of course, I’m sure they’re convinced that the election is lost no matter what Republicans do, so from their POV, it’s about minimizing the damage.

    Links to all the stuff lamenting how bad a Trump defeat will be for the GOP omitted in the interests of comity.

  13. Poinciana, somehow, I feel the jungle heat
    Within me, there grows a rhythmic, savage beat

  14. here’s an interesting take Mr. ropelight found

    Behaviorally, when the facts are the ally of an individual, he or she almost always tends to focus on the facts of the matter at hand. In this case, if the key fact was that he had not had these affairs, Cruz would almost certainly have been much more strongly focused on the denial. That is, he very likely would have made a point of explicitly stating something along the lines of, “I did not have these affairs.”

    Yet at no point in either statement did Cruz say that. He implied it by saying the allegations are false, and that they’re lies, but behaviorally, such statements are not equivalent to saying he never had the affairs. Even if we were to overlook that fact and consider his statements to be a denial, there is an overwhelmingly higher proportion of attack behavior compared to the effort expended at denial. This type of lopsided attack-to-denial ratio is very consistent with what we have historically seen with deceptive people when allegations are levied against them.

  15. That’s the creatively industrious spirit at rumor mongering at work. Works too for the entertainment value and other such stuff. Doesn’t put any meat upon the platter though.

  16. you’re right this porridge is too cold

  17. It’s “eat some air”, and “eat some more air, it’s good for you”.

  18. because you regard marital faithlessness as tantamount to politically theoretical faithlessness to a system of government? Have I got that right?

    this is fun. I might be more nuanced than that. I was a crime victim advocate, and when I say “sexual predator” I am referring to someone who will take advantage of their power over another, and the vulnerability in another human being to satisfy base desires (which causes permanent damage to the one being preyed upon.) This could take many forms, but in the case of Bill Clinton, for instance, he used his power (leader of the free world) to prey upon a naive girl and ultimately destroy her life, to get his rocks off. You could argue that Monica was not a child, and therefore Bill is not a predator. But that ignores the impact it had on her life vs. his, and their relative positions. This is also why there are corporate policies in most companies that prohibit managers from using their employees for sex (the “no fraternization” rules).

    I don’t know that I would call Donald a predator, simply because I don’t know what he has done. Just being divorced does not make you a predator.

    Theoretically IF Cruz was using his position to prey on women who work for him, I would have to ponder the ramifications of that sort of bold, Clintonesque behavior. (again, it’s probably just a smear. I get it.)

    “Sexual Predator” was a pretty egregious overreach there, missfixit.

    perhaps. but we are talking hypotheticals here. (I may be the only person on earth who uses predatory sexual behavior as a veto in my voting choices. I’m okay with that.)

    and yes this is probably all moot. I am not a slave to the polls (although the recent ones I saw had Trump ahead in CA and NY, so I am guessing he will be the nominee)..but I do pick up on the general mood and trends I am seeing. I actually witnessed a group of middle aged evangelical men get into a shouting match right before the primary here– I have never seen them act this way. They were much more angry than I remembered from the Clinton years. Everyone is feeling very pressured . Nobody can afford the damn health insurance, for one, and with the rate of everybody getting cancer the stress is crazy. Everyone’s business has been suffering for the past 8 years. it just adds to the already-underlying-disgust with everything Obama has done.

    The internal conflict we are feeling over this election is pretty unique in it’s severity, i think.

  19. It may be out of the way, but did you ever notice Bill Clinton abandoning his theoretical political principles on account of his marital infidelity? That is, cease to stand up for the advancement of such socialisms as he could practically manage, or in the counter-historical, start to advocate with honesty classical liberalism in their place? Just looking for a linkage there, since heaps happened.

    So (if one way or the other), do we notice something affirming a linkage between the marriage bed and undoing one’s ties to political theoretic (what you’ve also termed “ideals”, though I tend to shy away from such usages)? Some of that, I’ll bet, was actually present in Clinton’s case, since he could make use of the shifts to buy off his antagonists in the practical sense. On the whole th0ugh, as apart from mere political pragmatics — any linkage to abandonment of his ends at the political theoretical level? He still wants power, though this time through his wife — but in the meantime supported IWonPenPhone to the extent it was physically possible for him to do (i.e., not wretching or gagging) while still preening himself foremost across the stage.

  20. but did you ever notice Bill Clinton abandoning his theoretical political principles on account of his marital infidelity?

    I understand you are implying: that a man can be a conscienceless predator with no regard for females (or anyone weaker than himself), and yet still hold steadfast to his political ideology, and therefore any sexual behaviors can be overlooked in pursuit of the greater good.

    When you study predators, you find that their motivation in all things is to glorify/satisfy themselves first, and everything else is in service of that goal. So as long as the political ideology does not interfere with his main goal, it can coast along beside him more or less intact. The problems arise when he is pressured, exposed, or in some way must save his own hide and keep his privileges ( i don’t mean “privilege” in the identity politics way) in place – then you will see *anything* can and will be jettisoned.

    Bill Clinton has managed to keep his privileges and comforts, his power and accolades, his pension, his public image (somewhat, it was tarnished for sure, but he is still a hero to the liberals who overlook his wolf-like behavior because they are blinded by their own socialist dreams.) Clinton stayed the course with his politics because it still serves him well. He still has people who worship him and feed his ego, because he wears the Democrat badge. So he has not needed to abandon his politics too much.

    This is a problem with Trump. he has the whiff of someone who is in service to his own ego. It is right to question whether he will actually be a conservative President (and remain so despite potential pressure). It probably depends on what he’s got hiding in his closet, if anything, and what his personal goals truly are.

  21. Liz Mair’s Anti-Trump Super PAC Has Same Mailing Address as Carly Fiorina’s Campaign

  22. I understand you are implying: that a man can be a conscienceless predator with no regard for females (or anyone weaker than himself), and yet still hold steadfast to his political ideology, and therefore any sexual behaviors can be overlooked in pursuit of the greater good.

    No, that’s not actually what I had in mind, though I did a terrible job of putting together what I had in mind so it isn’t surprising I failed at it.

    It’s not at all about the greater good to begin with that I was thinking (though I do have my own views about that). More just at the surface of things — or to begin with, whether one person’s political theoretical views actually tie to his or her active personal life, good bad or indifferent — and this is to mean of necessity (ties at the theoretical level of things).

    So in the instance, at the gross or naive appearance of things, does the willingness to seek pleasure or satisfaction in sexual encounter while erasing a personal trust with a spouse determine that individual’s views of the order of a nation on the political field (I’m not attempting to make a judgment here about the rightness or wrongness of either bigger government or smaller — just taking either position as a matter of fact for those who embrace them, and that at the end of accounts each holds the position he holds because of his or her own judgment of politics as such)? Does a willingness to do wrong to one’s closest partner necessitate a stance demanding ever larger government operated by experts, or does that willingness indicate (necessarily again) the opposite, a demand for the exclusion of ever larger government, most especially from private affairs? Or is there no linkage we can make with any certainty one way or the other?

    Men do what they do (for instance) says Machiavelli, and we must fashion government taking into account that what men do is vile on the whole (can’t trust one’s own brother, he says: only look at Romulus and Remus, or Cain and Abel). So out with our inclination to fashion government on a premise of what’s best: better to fashion it on a premise of what’s worst (so that we end up with what’s best). And then, the Aristotelian opposite, which Machiavelli wants to dump overboard (I won’t recount Aristotle’s views here, but assume they’re more or less apprehended as the counter to Machiavelli’s views.) Thing is, Aristotle knew perfectly well how vile men are, and nonetheless thought we should aim at what’s best rather than focus on what’s worst as we go about fashioning our political order.

    Each of these guys though are aiming at the greater good. They’re just opposites about how (the means) to get there. The down in the weeds part is which makes the ties.

  23. whatever happened to herman cain’s accusers?

  24. Does a willingness to do wrong to one’s closest partner necessitate a stance demanding ever larger government operated by experts, or does that willingness indicate (necessarily again) the opposite, a demand for the exclusion of ever larger government, most especially from private affairs? Or is there no linkage we can make with any certainty one way or the other?

    ah I see .. no I think it is true, that a willingness to betray a personal relationship does not feed one particular style of politics.

    The willingness to betray crosses all party lines – it’s the human heart and all recognize it. I think it’s more practical than that. If one is willing to prey upon the weaker (if he thinks it will not be discovered), then he is servicing himself above all else. He is not, by his very choices, a public servant, serving the best interests of those he is charged with protecting.

    At least, that is how I see it. It can be varying degrees of depravity. The Cleveland Kidnapper, for instance, was quite a bit further down the path of self-service than say, John Edwards.
    at what point does a man jettison political ideals in the face of losing his privileges?

  25. For the sake of clarity, and because I’ve screwed it up again, I amend: “The down in the weeds part is which makes the ties.” will scan better this way

    The down in the weeds part is: which [of the two positions] makes the ties [from the personal to the theoretical]?

    Plus I should note I’ve left aside that between Machiavelli and Aristotle, they’re each competing against a different set of priests: in Aristotle’s case the pagan priests of his time, and in Machiavelli’s case, the Christian priests fashioned in some manner by Aristotle’s teaching itself. In our time Machiavelli’s success has shouldered our own priests more or less to the side, though those influences will likely never disappear altogether (the afterlife still has its uses, not least the promise of delivering justice to those who get away with injustice among us on account of our imperfections) — but that’s a question for another discussion.

  26. ah I see .. no I think it is true, that a willingness to betray a personal relationship does not feed one particular style of politics.

    Good then missfixit, and our answer is (tacitly) neither position. I think I agree with that, though style wouldn’t be the term I’d use. But however that may be, then that answer should tend to relieve any anxiety about a hypothetical marital infidelity causing a shift of position on theoretical grounds, while we acknowledge the simple possibility that minor shifts on pragmatic grounds for the sake of temporary advantage (as Clinton may have done or seems to have done) remain as likely as not. Even those minor shifts wouldn’t be good though, just not as bad as a complete reversal of the whole (looking to the Constitution again for the touchstone).

    Such that, beginning with serious favor of the Constitution is better than serious disfavor or even serious neglect of the Constitution. And there we seem to have a choice of three types, theoretically speaking.

  27. Three types, that is: regular man’s hands, female’s hands, and unusually short stumpy man’s hands.

  28. hands across failmericAAAAA *

    gay gay gay gay gay

  29. A Big chunk of the equation is how a person has presented then self, when a situation like this comes up, and what voters they are targeting. Cruz has been selling himself as a Christians choirboy and even lets Beck run around introducing him as the anointed one, so a revelation like this is going to be a bigger problem than with Clinton, who was selling himself to free love proggs and made no secret that he had staff dedicated to “bimbo eruptions”.

    It’s like the difference between a TV actor, and a televangelist. The both may get caught diddling the secretary, but only one is going to lose his audience.

  30. From what I understand, it’s not the size of the hand that determine manliness, but if the ring finger is longer than the index finger.

  31. let’s be honest it’s total weirdosville how ted and heidi lived apart for SEVEN years

    you can get lonely

    but a cat’s no help with that

  32. we acknowledge the simple possibility that minor shifts on pragmatic grounds for the sake of temporary advantage (as Clinton may have done or seems to have done) remain as likely as not

    depends on what the definition of “minor shifts” is.

    I agree it is unlikely that an avowed socialist would suddenly become a conservative if he faced losing his power… instead, he might just start using “executive orders” and arranging his own pay raise and taking long tours around the world to visit every despot, to make sure he gets enough kingly privileges both before and after the end of his reign.

  33. >let’s be honest it’s total weirdosville how ted and heidi lived apart for SEVEN yearsCruz married Heidi Nelson in 2001.[217] The couple have two daughters:[218] Caroline (born 2008) and Catherine (born 2011).<?

    and sarah palin

  34. heh, and Donald Trump is always just faking his Christianity with everyone hip to that so it’s cool for him to do, most of all with his self-asserting Christian followers — nice to eat the cake and keep it too.

  35. Well, speaking for myself, I’ve always been mindful I’m voting for POTUS and CIC, not for Pope or clergy. Not looking for spiritual guidance. Trump is asked, he says he’s Christian, I have no further concerns on the point.

    Having said that, even though he’s not selling himself as the anointed one, if it came out that he frequented prostitutes I would have a huge problem. Not because of his hypocrisy, but because of his vulnerability as CIC to a whole host of concerns such as blackmail down to just piss poor impulse control. Even a guy that isn’t married loses his respect from me if he hires hookers, it’s as big a sign of instability and lack of character as a heroin user.

    But that’s just me.

  36. Cruz has been selling himself as a Christians choirboy and even lets Beck run around introducing him as the anointed one,

    I must’ve missed those adds. Because the ones I remember had Cruz selling himself as the conservative’s conservative who said what he meant and did what he said –and had the enemies on his own side of the aisle to prove it.

  37. whatever happened to herman cain’s accusers?

    The same thing that,had she the sense to realize that she’d served her purpose, would have happened to Cindy Sheehan.

  38. “Sexual Predator” was a pretty egregious overreach there, missfixit.
    [P]erhaps [“’Sexual Predator’ was a pretty egregious overreach,”] but we are talking hypotheticals here. [. . . .] [W]hen I say “sexual predator” I am referring to someone who will take advantage of their power over another, and the vulnerability in another human being to satisfy base desires (which causes permanent damage to the one being preyed upon.)

    For which there is at this point not an iota’s worth of evidence in the case of Ted Cruz. So stop projecting. You’re in Ace of Spades Trump is such a sick egomaniac that he can’t be trusted with the nuclear codes! territory here.

  39. i think you can trust cruz with codes and stuff he’s hard to warm up to though

    he’s unlikable like that sitcom character what makes all the other characters seem like nice people what are fun to be around

  40. i think you can trust cruz with codes and stuff he’s hard to warm up to though
    Trump is unlikeable in a different way. It’s NY loudmouth vs. uptight preacher. Yaaaay

  41. Some people seem to think that all of these sounds bad …

    John Kerry Says World Leaders Are ‘Shocked’ … by GOP Campaign Rhetoric

    “Everywhere I go, every leader I meet, they ask about what is happening in America,” Kerry told CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday. “They cannot believe it. I think it is fair to say that they’re shocked. They don’t know where it’s taking the United States of America. And to some degree I must say to you, some of the questions, the way they’re posed to me, it’s clear to me that what’s happening is an embarrassment to our country.”

    The author then proceeds to cast blame …

    Although he didn’t mention anyone by name, it seemed evident Kerry was referring to the rhetoric in the GOP camp …

    … but seems to be a perfect description of Barack Obama’s foreign policy.
    I mean, there have been reports of European diplomats asking visiting Americans if our President is “insane.”

  42. does anyone else remember the left’s reaction to Bill Clinton’s sexual use of Monica and the ensuing circus?
    “oooh, Europe is laughing at us, because we’re such Puritan pruuuudes!!”
    “nobody else cares! this is nothing! we’re so unsophisticated!” “the Right’s reaction to this is sooo embarrassing”

    I also didn’t realize that Kerry was still alive.

  43. That’s because it’s different when the Left does it missfixit

  44. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 03.28.16 : The Other McCain

  45. Greetings:

    It ain’t those “Christians choirboys” that are a problem. It’s those Christian altar boys you can’t never turn your back on. Cassocks and surplices can hide a multitude of sins.

  46. that mustache ain’t the boss of me

    that mustache ain’t the boss of me

    you know you got my sympathy

    but that mustache ain’t the boss of me

  47. you don’t own me
    mean mister moustache
    sleeps in the park shaves in the dark
    trying to save paper

    sleeps in a hole in the road
    saving up to buy some clothes
    keeps a ten-bob note up his nose

    such a mean old man
    such a mean old man

    his sister pam works in a shop
    she never stops she’s a go-getter

    takes him out to look at the queen
    only place that he’s ever been
    always shouts out something obscene

    such a dirty old man
    dirty old man

  48. Trump and happyfeet are both pieces of shit. Trump will NEVER be president.

  49. and i’m chopped liver?

  50. I think there is an even chance Trump WILL be president. We’ll see how that goes.

  51. I thought so to. And then Geraghty mentioned yesterday that Trump is the one candidate with negatives higher than Hillary –in addition to consistently polling behind her. So now I’m not so sure.

  52. Donald Trump, Liberalism’s Frankenstein monster

  53. It’s now I’m with my soldier lad,
    His ways they are so winning
    It’s drum and fife are my delight
    And a pint o’ rum in the morning
    With me rue rum ay, fother didle day
    Wok fol air didle i do

  54. The RCP average has never shown Trump beating Hillary. If Trump is the nominee Hillary almost certainly wins.

    Whether she beats Trump or loses to him, it will be the Obama Era: Years Nine Through Twelve.

    I can’t respect anyone who thinks that’s a good idea.

  55. (On her alone [in relation to law]:) It remains to tattered hope to imagine Clinton cannot beat anyone from behind bars — the only alternative to which is tantamount to making an ultimate image of widespread death and destruction in revolt. For to leave her out of prison is to demonstrate the deepest intention to take all the people have, a proposition they’ll be rightfully open to not meekly accept (once it dawns on them in its fullness, though only god knows when that will be).

  56. Hear the echo there of John Locke’s 2nd Treatise, 3rd book example of the highwayman? One should, if, and only if, one had read and understood that.

  57. So of course Lewandowski lied. And Fields was smeared. But hey, big deal, since Trump only surrounds himself with the best liars.

  58. It remains to tattered hope to imagine Clinton cannot beat anyone from behind bars

    Well, you can wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which gets full first. As Grampa Gustafson was want to say.

    Hoping Clinton gets indicted, or the FBI director resigns in protest because she doesn’t get indicted, or hoping somebody in the know starts leaking to the press like he’s deep throat, Clinton is Nixon and this is Watergate isn’t a remotely viable campaign stategery.

  59. Oh that’s a kind consideration Ernst. Very kind. So thoughtful.

  60. Was riffing off of your comment. Didn’t mean to imply you were the chief campaign stategerist for the underpants gnome party.

  61. Gee, nor even to suggest that I wasn’t writing about campaign strategy at all, but something else (even more important maybe) altogether?

  62. Changing the subject (sorta): I hear Walker sold out to the establishment.

  63. Trump attacks Walker for not raising taxes in Wisco. meh, just another conservative tool, that Trump.

  64. The Supreme Court just decided it was okay for the public employee unions to help themselves to a portion of the paycheck of a government employee who can’t be forced to join the union.

    This country hasn’t had a budget in my youngest child’s lifetime or thereabouts.

    Real unemployment is I don’t know how many times the reported numbers. The recovery is a joke. The lights are all but out in Europe.

    But hey, Dancing with the Stars is back on tv, so that means The Bachelorette is right around the corner!

    So do you really think people are gong to rise up in protest if the woman isn’t indicted?

    She’s under threat of indictment already, and she’s leading in the polls*

    It’s like one wag said over at Ace’s, Trump is the SMOD we’ve been waiting for.

    *that may be an unwarranted extrapolation from McGehee’s earlier comment

  65. I met Al Lewis back in the day — and Ted Cruz is no Al Lewis: Al was every bit of 6’0″ tall, Cruz by comparison is a 5’8″ shrimp.

  66. So do you really think . . . ?

    Ah, now we come to grips! What’s it look like to you (I may ask) while we’re at the gripping stage?

  67. Another win for Smaht (Not Dumb, Like Everyone Says, Smaht!) Diplomacy: We’re evacuating dependents from southern Turkey.

  68. Just let me link an Andrew McCarthy screed at NRO here while we’re at it.

  69. It looks to me like this country’s been run by a bunch of self-important nincompoops who happen to agree with Louis XV’s mistress Marquise de Pompadour.

    And they’re about to reap the whirl wind.

    To mix metaphors.

    Gotta run.

  70. Who (they ask)?

  71. Andrew Jackson probably would have just challenged Trump to a duel…

  72. And, to hear Kevin D. Williamson tell it, Trump would’ve refused.

    But that does raise an interesting point, in that if anyone had a temperment unsuited to the highest office in the land, it was the boorish, vulgar, angry and violent Andrew Jackson.

  73. Would Andy Jackson have protested that “She touched me first!”?

    I believe not. On account of Andy wasn’t a pathetic loser.

  74. Some of you fuckers are crazy.

  75. Trump would have pissed his pants, Ernst.

  76. It was the English House Sparrow gave it away, wasn’t it?

  77. Only some of us?

  78. Crazy times Jeff. Hard to tell crazy from crazy crazy.

  79. We’re sorta back to, or stuck in — depending how we look at it — Catch 22 in terms of telling crazy from crazy. Chances being good that thems that cain’t ar’t.

  80. Would Andy Jackson have protested that “She touched me first!”?

    Yeah. The way Trump’s handling this seems designed to validate theose critics who say he’s tempermentally unsuited for the job. Thin-skinned and brittle as well as small-fingered and vulgar, as it were.

    And then there’s the whole tax thing you mentioned.

  81. According to Einstein, doing the same thing and expecting different results is crazy, so voting for Trump is the sane thing to do.

    If Jackson challenged me to a duel I’d probably piss myself. Trump would probably negotiate a deal where ol’ Andrew invested a hundred in tasty Trump steaks and got a free bottle of Trump wine instead of all that nasty dueling business. Might have even sold him on the idea of Indian casinos 150 years before their time, for a small cut of the house.

    Yeah, the Donald is THAT awesome…

  82. You do realize that a Republican (ostensibly) candidate for President criticizing a sitting fellow Republican governor for not raising taxes is what we used to call a tell, right?

  83. And Cruz is just like McCain or just like Romney all over again makes about as much sense as, well, as Trump is the new Reagan, quite frankly.

  84. On the other hand, if it comes down to a floor fight in Cleveland, I have no doubt that the powers-that-be and the would-be powers in the GOP will engineer an outcome favorable to the establishment. So your point is taken. At least in part.

  85. Ernst, I’ve been busy and I’m behind on the news so I gotta plead ignorance on your tax reference. I’ve just been riffing off comments here, sorry.

    I’m getting a little stressed now ‘cuz despite my experience as a Californian my primary vote might actually matter. I might actually have to be serious about it..

    Nahh, I’ve never cast a majority vote in California. Well, prop 8, but that was overturned. I don’t even know why I bother paying attention anymore.

  86. Mr. Jeff!

  87. Scott Walker endorsed Cruz. Trumps response:

    Donald Trump on Tuesday accused Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker of ruining his state’s economy because he was afraid to raise taxes.

    And this

    “You had a $2.2 billion deficit and the schools were going begging, everything was going begging because he didn’t want to raise taxes because he wanted to run for president so instead of raising taxes he cut back on schools, cut back on highways, cut back on a lot of things,” Trump said of Walker during a radio interview Monday. “And that’s why Wisconsin has a problem when you’re losing jobs all over the place and you’re not getting your product out like you’re supposed to get it out.”

    Sounds a helluva lot like you didn’t build that to me.

  88. This is why we cannot have nice things.

  89. I’m conflicted. On one hand we got the Canadian (though born in Calgary Alberta, which along with Saskatchewan is different from the rest of Canada and is really more like northern Montana) who is arguably more “conservative” whatever that means these days and at best will be a lone man raging against the machine though I really think he has less chance of being elected than Trump.

    On the other hand we got Trump, who I think is more electable due to gains in dissatisfied dems, but has consistency problems we are all aware of, but has actually done more to shift the Overton Window right than anyone else in the race. In fact, I don’t think there would have been any shift without him.

    I’m of the opinion Trump would be a bigger blow to the Republican establishment than Cruz, but maybe not as big a blow to the ruling elite as a whole. It would require a great deal of faith in Cruz to think he would wound the ruling elite more, which I doubt because he’s still beholden to the donor class.

    Then I have all these haters telling me I’m a dunce and deserve no respect because I even consider Trump, which makes me want to vote for him just as a fuck you to such arrogant assholes.

    Gosh this is going to be hard…

  90. To be honest I’m also conflicted on the whole lower tax thing. I believe in the laffer curve, and that needs to be a big determination in tax code, but honestly, the Taxed Enough Already movement was not so much about taxes as it was the deficit. Conservatives pay their bills, we’re taxed enough, QUIT SPENDING!

    This is the quandary of being responsible. We know we have to pay our way so our grandkids don’t end up paying for our excesses. But you can no longer win elections telling people they have to pay for what they spend. Even conservatives cringe at the thought. Telling the truth is painful, but it’s still the truth.

  91. this crazy peep wants more mr. jeff!!11!!

  92. Well, according to Trump Walker should’ve raised taxes instead of cutting back on schools and roads and lots of things.

    Of couse, had Walker endorsed Trump, he’d be the kind of leader America needs, a guy who knows the bottom line and isn’t afraid to make the tough decisions, a guy who knows how to get things done.

    So there’s the truth, and there’s the truth according to Trump.

  93. The problem with the idea that Trump can beat Clinton and Cruz can’t is that the numbers aren’t there to support either postulate.

    And it doesn’t help to argue that the polls are biased against Trump (I agree that it’s possible Trump’s support is under reported). They’re also biased in favor of Clinton. At least given how polling has been totally corrupted over the last decade and a half.

    So it’s my guess that either of them can beat her.

    And while I used to think Trump had a certain built-in immunity to the Clinton’s scorched earth brand of negative campaigning which Cruz was lacking, that was before I knew his negatives were higher than hers.

    All the usual caveats about snap shots in time, turn-out models, difference between likely voters and registered voters and all.

  94. Ernst. At this point I would truly vote for anyone other than this fucking train wreck that is Trump. I would even pull the lever for Lindsey Graham. If he doesn’t get the 1237 he will be toast and I will vote for whomever they throw up there. Trump will not get my vote. If he gets the 1237 my vote will go to Gary Johnson.

  95. Why is that Garym? Is it because he’s a yellow-bellied coward of an infantile loser? Or is it because he hasn’t got a clue about decent policies? Or is it just his low-life lack of decent character? Or, y’know, that he’s a Democrat posing as a Republican?

  96. That argument about the high negatives does nothing for me. Same as the inevitable argument last time. I’m not going to not vote for who I want, and vote for the guy you want just because you say you won’t vote for my guy no matter what. Feels like some asshole is trying to use extortion on me, and I ain’t playing.

    So Garym, nice try and good luck, you made my decision easier..

    Trump 2016!

  97. Then I have all these haters telling me I’m a dunce and deserve no respect because I even consider Trump, which makes me want to vote for him just as a fuck you to such arrogant assholes.

    but then the haters say you are stupid for being reactionary and getting pissed off because they said you are a dunce for considering Trump. Just eat it, I guess. Some need to learn the art of persuasion..

    maybe it’s best to just lay low and let the dust settle, for those of us who aren’t in swing states and won’t make a critical difference in Nov. I am certainly not going to be putting any signs in my yard or stickers on my car.
    speaking of which, the Obama morons around here have removed all the hope and change stickers but i haven’t seen any Hillary or Sanders ones yet. hmm.

  98. I have a couple of hypotheticals in which I might vote for Trump. But of late he’s doing a pretty good job of reminding me why I shouldn’t.

  99. All I gotta say is if you think Trump would be no worse than Hillary or Sanders, you’re delusional. The man may not be a staunch conservative, but he’s no socialist.

  100. All I gotta say is if you think Trump would be no worse than Hillary or Sanders, you’re delusional. The man may not be a staunch conservative, but he’s no socialist.

    THIS.

    Moreover, let’s just dispose of the “Trump is a closet Establican” nonsense. He is someone who doesn’t play well with the Establican team, on many issues, and they have blackballed him as a result. And immigration is just one such issue.

    One can be a RINO and still be disliked by the Establicans. See Wilson, Pete here in California, back when this state still had a chance.

  101. Top three — first they’re three: security, security, security, that’s how one counts three things (because the question is coming, after all, from a retired military guy wearing badges, no less) — but healthcare and education, those fill out the bill if you have to have three. No, not a socialist, just a dim-wit.

  102. I think the thing many of us see that his supporter’s can’t or won’t is that he’s not much of a conservative at all.

    I’m guessing the third function must be border security, or maybe a stong military.

    So. Remind me again, somebody. What’s the difference between a socialist and a fascist?

  103. So. Remind me again, somebody. What’s the difference between a socialist and a fascist?

    The spiffy uniform preferred by the latter?

  104. ooh ooh!
    socialists have better cheese. ?

  105. Everyone turns to Havana for their Pecorino-Romano

  106. An f, an i, and an l?

  107. I’m thinking socialists are globalists, fascists are nationalists.

    Don’t mean if you’re a nationalist that you’re a fascist though.

    As far as being conservative, I’d agree Trump isn’t what we would consider conservative, strictly speaking, certainly he’s not a social conservative. I would say heis conservative in that he loves America wants her to be what she once was, exceptional wise. I think he has some conservative positions, like on the second amendment and pro law and order. Bottom line for me as I’ve said many times, I’m a single issue voter this election. I think the danger we are in with open borders has become so crucial almost all other conciderations like planned parenthood and ethanol subsidies are downright frivolous at this point.

  108. Asked a question about “three” primary things of the Federal government, Trump doesn’t pause to ask in turn “Why three?” “What is it, my questioner, that causes you to concern yourself with three, rather than two, or four?”

    Trump then can’t remember to think of the tripartite nature of the Federal Constitution in order to orient himself to the great aims of the Federal Government. Nor even, supposing he restricts himself to the purposes of just the one branch for which he runs for office, the Executive, to think of the first three cabinet offices of the newly created United States in order to help his mind to recall the first three prominent functions of the federal Executive.

    No. His mind doesn’t work that way because he isn’t concerned with the exceptional aspects of the United States compared over against all other forms of governing in other nations and in other times.

    That’s partly because he doesn’t have the sort of mind capable of asking itself the correct questions to open his own curiosity into the world. Why? Why is this? Well, on the surface we see he is simply incurious. He doesn’t care. He doesn’t read books for a personal sense of satisfaction, for cryin’ out loud. He doesn’t write books, he buys them written for him.

    He does care about power, however, how he can get it, and how he can use it. All else, to appearances, be damned.

  109. You know who knows all that stuff? McConnell. Ryan. Graham. McCain. Jeb. Yay them.

  110. Obama is a constitutional scholar I hear. BFD.

  111. Obama is a constitutional scholar I hear

    yeah that stings.

  112. Obama is no more a constitutional scholar than I am a chinese jet pilot.

  113. Idiocracy too is a value. There is still doubt whether it will yield good, let alone right or justice.

  114. You know who knows all that stuff?

    In the alternative you might as easily have said: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, Alexander Hamilton and lo, behold! a fourth! Edmund Randolph. Boo them.

    But no, incuriously, you resort to stupidities.

  115. I always knew some of me was crazy.

  116. “socialists have better cheese.”

    Well if you have to put in vouchers and wait in line for it it ought to be good.

  117. “Idiocracy too is a value.”

    I have my doubts that the high IQ couple who didn’t breed where great contributers to anything. They probably wrote papers discussing how the colors used on bus route diagrams intentionally yet unconsciously reinforce race inequality. But the theory was their kids would be smart if they were and some of those smart kids might have picked a real field to follow and thus contributed and prevented a world where you get law degrees at a giant rotting costco.

    But Idiocracy aside, bad is bad. Stupid is stupid. Nonsense is nonsense. Saying so, is not smug collaborative virtue signaling among power cliques who do the bidding of the clueless or corrupt.

    The shenanigans of a bad AC repairman doesn’t make AC repair knowledge a bad thing or some random uninterested guy fucking with it to see what happens a good thing, even if that guy occasionally talks real pretty in between unsightly/revolting Tourette epsisodes.

  118. “Obama is no more a constitutional scholar than I am a chinese jet pilot.”

    ‘All under heaven’ is the birth-goal of the unified kingdoms from what I hear.

  119. Probably I should mention I’ve never seen the movie Idiocracy (though I know it’s available), so when I refer to idiocracy I’m mostly just referring to the idea of rule by idiots without an attendant other stuff.

  120. **** Cooper: I want you to meet Robert Kitelinger. He’s retired from the U.S. Army after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s now a student at Marquette University…

    (applause)

    C: Robert?

    Kitelinger: Good evening, Mr. Trump. In your opinion, what are the top three functions of the United States government?

    Trump: Say it again?

    K: In your opinion, what are the top three functions of the United States government?

    T: Well, the greatest function of all by far is security for our nation. I would also say health care, I would also say education. I mean, there are many, many things, but I would say the top three are security, security, security.

    […]

    C: So top three, you’re saying, security.

    T: Security. I say all top three are security, but health care, education, would be probably three that would be top. And then you can go on from there.

    […]

    C: So in terms of federal government role, you’re saying security, but you also say health care and education should be provided by the federal government?

    T: Well, those are two of the things. Yes, sure. I mean, there are obviously many things, housing, providing great neighborhoods…

    (crosstalk)

    C: Aren’t you against the federal government’s involvement in education? Don’t you want it to devolve to states?

    T: I want it to go to state, yes. Absolutely. I want — right now…

    C: So that’s not part of what the federal government’s…

    (crosstalk)

    T: The federal government, but the concept of the country is the concept that we have to have education within the country, and we have to get rid of common core and it should be brought to the state level.

    C: And federal health care run by the federal government?

    T: Health care — we need health care for our people. We need a good — Obamacare is a disaster. It’s proven to be…

    C: But is that something the federal government should be doing?

    T: The government can lead it, but it should be privately done. It should be privately done. So that health care — in my opinion, we should probably have — we have to have private health care. We don’t have competition in health care.

    The problem that we have in our country is we don’t have competition. It’s made because the politicians — by the way, I’m self-funding. I am self-funding. So the health care companies aren’t taking care of me. But they’re taking care of everyone else. ****

  121. mmm. Word Salad. The dressing is fabulous.

  122. I would say he [Trump] is conservative in that he loves America wants her to be what she once was, exceptional wise. I think he has some conservative positions, like on the second amendment and pro law and order. Bottom line for me as I’ve said many times, I’m a single issue voter this election. I think the danger we are in with open borders has become so crucial almost all other conciderations like planned parenthood and ethanol subsidies are downright frivolous at this point.

    The problem is, as that rambling stream of consciousness answer to what should have been a simple question showed, Trump really has no idea what it was that made America great. Certainly not one he can articulate.

    As for the rest, I understand it, but I wish that there was a greater awareness of and appreciation for the ways in which all these issues are interconnected. We wouldn’t have to import foreign workers to do the jobs that create the wealth that we skim off the top to pay the subsidies if we’d stop murdering our own in the womb, for example.

  123. “The government can lead it, but it should be privately done.”

    Ok, the government [the public thing, held in common (kionos), the opposite of the private, i.e., the idios, that which is alone by itself, privately held, peculiar, or held to oneself or one’s own liberties)] can lead it [introducing the opposite of the private, the commonweal, into the affairs of the private where the commonweal does not and cannot by definition belong: for if the commonweal is present then by definition the private no longer exists, no liberty at personal affairs], but it should be [the public should stay out of the affairs of the private?] privately done [completely contradicting the first clause of the sentence, for if privately done then no part of the public need nor can be present].

    Who hangs out all day on the Pnyx devoting themselves to the affairs of the city? Not the idiotes, who will never go there unless when required by law, instead keeping (selfishly) to their own personal affairs. The idiotes want no part of this governing business, save to benefit from it as it establishes order in which they can reap rewards, which they then pay in assigned portion to the city in taxes or in military service by funding ships, armor, and what not else for war-making. Otherwise, the idiotes are despised by the good democrats doing both their pleasure and their duty on the Pynx.

  124. koinos, rather. Apologies.

  125. *when i think about me*

  126. “Probably I should mention I’ve never seen the movie Idiocracy (though I know it’s available), so when I refer to idiocracy I’m mostly just referring to the idea of rule by idiots without an attendant other stuff. ”

    I assumed that by idiocracy you meant visceral rejection of all that highbrow faggy smarty talk and a presumption that how we do things is common sense even if we do ’em differently. It wasn’t long ago that anti-intellectualism was a serious charge brought against all those uppity flyover cletus types with their General Lees and their greasy pomades. In fact it was used most recently tho try and shut up climate change deniers because they hate the scienceness of the science wizards.

    Idiocracy vs. Ideological “Right Side of Hisory” Progressive Technocracy usually sets up a false dilemma between the poles of “Kerry-esque nuance” in foreign policy where nothing ever gets done or you lose everything and call it a great victory for everyone, and “Kill ’em all! Merica! ‘Damn Straight Son!” auto-jingoism.

  127. “Obama is no more a constitutional scholar than I am a chinese jet pilot.”

    Oh we’re all Chinese. Just some of us western white devils don’t know it yet. Wink!

  128. Yep, Trump is clearly a proponent of the federal government sticking to its enumerated powers: security, security, security, education, and health care.

    Pretty sure that’s in the preamble or the interstate commerce clause or something.

  129. Oh we’re all Chinese. Just some of us western white devils don’t know it yet. Wink!

    Singing: I like Chinese
    They only
    come up to your knees…

    It’s a good day when I get to quote both Ash and Monty Python.

  130. wish we could transplant Cruz’s knowledge and Trump’s boldness into a franken-candidate.
    maybe they will be on the same ticket. it could happen.

  131. Alas sdferr, Trump is the very definition of a modern major man of affairs (koinotes?) by ancient standards. ” I’m self-funding. I am self-funding. So the health care companies aren’t taking care of me. But they’re taking care of everyone else. ”

    Granted, he hasn’t cultivated the virtues he should have, given his wealth and leisure. . . .

    But then neither did Commodus. And he granted citizenship to the whole world.

    /faggoty smart talk

  132. Trump’s not bold. He’s brash.

  133. I generally think of common sense as the opposite of idiocy (using the term idiocy on current questions, as opposed to ancient ones), the idiot being capable of thinking he’s discovered on his very own that 2 + 2 is 5 (so not in the Orwellian context here, he’s not threatened with torture) and still be quite serious about it (because it’s his theory, the theory which is his — so the Monty Python skit maybe) when challenged. Not to say that our received common sense is never in error. Common sense just seems to me to tend to get more right — especially in the local questions on direct knowledge — than wrong.

    Trump, it seems to me, is on many occasions pretty sticky in this idiocy respect, though on more trivial things he too can be seen to backpedal when he reckons he needs to do for politiking purposes– but on general or bigger matters, I don’t think I’ve ever seen Trump seriously question any of his priors or demonstrate any kind of openness like that: no freaking way, he just knows, he’s already got all the answers he needs — and those answers are the best for everyone else, just watch, says he. In this sense I think Kerry’s like that and Obama’s like that. I don’t think of this as an ideological question though, so much as characterological, if there’s such a term.

  134. Or, on that last proposition [“don’t think of this as an ideological question”] except like now when I reconsider it in light of Destutt de Tracy’s aim with the idea of “ideology”. Things begin to convolute, in that case.

  135. In the Shenandoah valley Ernst we used the term brash to describe a brittle too easily snap-broken chunk of wood weak in the long-grain. Is that fit to your usage there?

  136. “Self-assertive in a rude, noisy or overbearing way” is the dictionary definition.

    But I like your usage too.

  137. brash = New York loudmouth, yes I think I covered that earlier.

    ANYway. there is a time and place for smarty talk and then there’s a time and place for …whatever this election is.

  138. smack m fields until the feminazi say stop to sharia #ihaveabruise

  139. **** Donald Trump’s 3 positions on abortion in 3 hours

    <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/30/politics/donald-trump-abortion-positions/index.html"(CNN) Donald Trump sought to clarify, walk back, then seemingly reverse his position on punishing women who seek abortion procedures — should they be legally banned — over the course of a few hours Wednesday.

    Here’s what he said about it in just one day:

    ‘Some form of punishment’

    […]

    ‘This issue is unclear’

    […]

    ‘The woman is a victim’ ****

    Hat Trick!

  140. I’m a single issue voter this election. I think the danger we are in with open borders has become so crucial almost all other conciderations like planned parenthood and ethanol subsidies are downright frivolous at this point.

    Boy, your man sure screwed the pooch there, didn’t he?

  141. Granted, the Democrats will do, and always were going to do, what they’re going to do, (WAR! on WYMINs!) regardless of whom the GOP nominated.

    But in all honesty, can you say Donald Trump hasn’t gone out of his way to play into that? He’s like Khan charging into the Mutara Nebula that way. (Just to nerd things up).

    So, we have to ask, again: Is Trump a stalking horse for Clinton?

  142. It would be interesting to know the overlap between current Trump supporters saying “damn right a woman ought to go to prison if abortion is illegal” and past supporters of the bus under which Todd Akin was thrown.

  143. “damn right a woman ought to go to prison if abortion is illegal”

    Trump makes himself sound like a loonie with the various statements, but he was right that *if* the whole government decided that abortion is an illegal procedure (like murder), then *of course* there would have to be some punishment associated with it?? The catch here is that it will never happen. Abortion rights will never be outlawed to that extent, because too many people have used those services and you’ll never have a mass ground swelling of support on that anyway.

    The dude is a mess, for sure. maybe this is an argument for teleprompters.

  144. maybe this is an argument for teleprompters.

    I tend to think it’s an argument against life-long Democrats running in the Republican primary, myself. The amusing thing was listening to him run through the pro-abortion arguments as if they were somehow an answer to the question.

    And I say that as someone who is pro-choice but in accordance with medical technology, i.e., I think we keep moving the target on survivability outside the womb and should acknowledge that fact if and when we approach, legislatively, the question of when and how abortions should remain legal.

  145. The catch here is that it will never happen.

    Which is why a smart politician would do what Jackie Stallone’s son Sylvester would do, and keep the discussion focused on the baby.

    But Donald had to be like Frank.

    I tend to think it’s an argument against life-long Democrats running in the Republican primary, myself.

    It’s also further evidence that Jonah Goldberg had it right when he noted that Trump speaks the language of conservatism more fluently than Romney ever did, but it’s still a foreign language to him.

  146. The breadth of shocked amazement voiced on what’s ever more frequently being called the “shit-show” of Trumpery this morning seems to indicate an increasingly greater agreement at an unintelligible pattern taking shape, a pattern vaguely despising women (as women understand it), driven, apparently, by choice on the part of the Trump campaign. Sure ‘nough, such a choice isn’t easy to put a reason to (if choice it is, hence unintelligible). That is, why choose this pattern, if “this” were presumed to be chosen with deliberation? Who would design that, and with what in mind?

    On the other hand, what if “this” string of events isn’t something chosen by deliberation at all — that is with a premeditated view to intentionally creating an expected outcome both from and against women (and here we can only hypothesize what benefit that outcome would be assumed to yield, hypothesize without proof, for the aim of such a choice should be a closely held strategic card in the context of a political campaign: the expected downside of alienating women doesn’t appear to warrant the technical use of this focus as a case of the aforementioned stray-voltage ploy, for instance.) — but merely an accidental concatenation of events and stumbles which happen to reveal an underlying tendency, propensity or disposition heretofore carefully obscured? One might be tempted to suggest the concealed tendency actually does belong to the political left as a fundamental component of the left’s views, but such a suggestion would surely be taken as dirty pool in these quarters. But then, what? Is this just an unavoidable reflex, created by decades of a single mind privately disparaging women’s worth, i.e., not thinking of women as his moral peers? Or what?

  147. I’m more inclined to answer your query with “Trump’s a dumb-ass,” SD, than with “Trump’s part of a conspiracy to elect Clinton,” if for no other reason than it seems unlikely his big, beautiful ego would permit such a thing.

  148. “Trump’s part of a conspiracy to elect Clinton,”

    this is too far fetched. this is when the “faggoty smart talk” loses touch with earth and sounds a teensy bit like Sylvia Browne.
    Trump is in it to win it, baby! :/

  149. Yeah, most conspiracy theories are nonsense.

  150. I’ve heard people suggest the elect Clinton conspiracy but not ever thought there was such a thing myself Jim. On the contrary, as I attempted to blindly construct some hypothetical rationale to account for the posited “strategic choice” notion, for the most part my efforts centered on the Trump campaign “cleverly” prepping the ground for a destruction of Clinton — needless to say perhaps that I consider my own efforts in that direction a failure, since I can’t see the numbers adding up.

    Hence the subsequent groping for some other explanation. Still in the dark though, I gotta say. The damage is too obvious, and yet the campaign’s motions to clarify their stance only appears to make things worse.

    So, dumb, yes: but so very dumb as to be . . . what was Vizinni’s word, again? Oh yeah, inconceivable. While Montoya’s response continues to hold sway — because there it is right in front of us. Maybe that’s just the way with idiocy though?

  151. shocked amazement

    Poor Ann. So unlucky in love.

  152. And a pint o’ rum in the morning

  153. Trump fell for a gotcha line of questioning something he was supposed to be good at avoiding.

    He not say any more than outlawing all abortion is not going to happen, however, restrictions on late term abortion are a possibility but, they are a state issue so his personal beliefs are little importance.

  154. It’s really too bad we can’t hit the rewind button and have a do-over on this whole primary thing.

  155. We may get one yet if enough delegates feel that way

    and if nobody can win on the first ballot.

  156. Trump’s campaign is starting to look like the end of a game of Tetris when you start running our of maneuvering room and the bricks start stacking up quick.

  157. well if Trump shoots himself in the foot so badly that he loses WI and MI, then maybe it will all turn around.

    hey look at that! In the space of just one blog post thread, we’ve gone from examining the various possible mistresses of Cruz to watching Trump shit his pants in front of enough people to effect his momentum. ha.

  158. ok – nobody here was actually examining the possibility that Cruz is another Bill C., but I will hold up that end of things, no worries.

  159. “. . . nobody here was actually examining the possibility . . .”

    Nevermind anyone here, since there are hundreds of paid professionals in the newsmedia who, now they’ve got a rumor mill to springboard from, are surely turning over every rock and motel register they can get their hands on, right? Where are their results, since this rumor mill has been circulating for many months now? Ah well, someone will let the world know when they find something substantial apart from the complete pile of steaming turds currently on offer from the Trumpquirer.

  160. So what are we saying here, if the abortion issue is returned to the states, and a state makes abortion illegal, there should be no penalty for breaking the law?

  161. I think what we’re saying is Trump Akin’d all over himself before he Kerry’d himself. And part of the attraction of the Trump candidacy was supposed to be he was too busy saying “Fuck you. Next question” to do that to himself.

    I think also that it’;s been suggested or implied that this happened because he really doesn’t care about the issue, so he flubbed it.

    Hopefully he doesn’t do the same on illegal immigration.

  162. Trump Akin’d all over himself before he Kerry’d himself.
    Ok that’s funny

  163. Speaking of Akin, I’m sick of this shit. The side I’ve been fighting for my whole adult life now thinks Donald Trump is the enemy, and demonizes him more than any democrat. I’ve had enough, I don’t like either side, so y’all can figure it out without me. Carry on eating your own, Bon appetite

  164. It’s difficult to consider a life-long democrat who doesn’t honestly give a shit about the US Constitution one’s own. Enemy no, not so much, just not the sort any straightforward adherent to the classical liberalism of the founding and framing generation would voluntarily choose as an ally.

    What I’m getting sick of, if it’s confession time, is the constant oh poor put upon me acts I’m seeing every which way I turn. Goddamn if people don’t simply refuse to take ownership of their plight. It’s always someone else’s fault. Hey, y’know, fuck that. Buck up ladies and gentlemen, the choices are actually yours to take. Try taking the right ones for a change.

  165. Stupid echo chamber.

  166. And that pretty much completes the circle.

    The goal of conservatism is a government so small we can all stop obsessing about politics.

    Time to Mozambique the thread.

  167. Or maybe just double-tap the html

  168. Let the echos of dead George Gershwin’s songbook make America great again. NY (Hollywood) values with as got as good a chance as any. And on the plus side doesn’t make women want to wretch up their breakfasts while it goes about its business.

  169. See, this is what I’m talking about.
    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/01/wisconsin-trump-gop-will-lose/

    Except what the author dismisses as “vulgar language” and “bombastic rhetoric”, I see as a fourth realism; the rejection of PC that is making honest discussion almost impossible today.

    Mostly what I’m sickened by is the hypocrisy of republicans who made Trump swear a loyalty oath, then began a major offensive of #nevertrump. I was wrong when I said I’m a single issue voter, my second issue is wresting power from the ruling class and returning it to the people. Unfortunately, too many republicans are too scared to make the bold choice necessary for that to happen, so while democrats as usual will defend or ignore any negatives of their candidate, republicans take delight in ripping their front-runner a new asshole at every opportunity.

    Anyway, I’m disgusted with republicans who seem to have adopted Alinski as their own, and if Hillary wins, despite what Geraghty says (Ernst Schreiber says March 31, 2016 at 12:45 pm) , it won’t be because I support Trump it will be because democrats support their candidate and republicans did her job for her in destroying the Republican front runner, and cutting their own base in half by making enemies of them. Truly a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good.

  170. Oh, I have another unpopular proposal. I think it’s about time to stop pretending the spouses of candidates should be off limits. Gone are the days of Jackie O standing around looking pretty. From Nancy’s war on drugs to Hillaries first shot at national healthcare to Michele’s war on tasty food, and now the possibility of a former president becoming first gentleman, I say it’s way past time wee pretend presidential spouses are exempt from scrutiny. What say you?

  171. But Idiocracy aside, bad is bad. Stupid is stupid. Nonsense is nonsense. Saying so, is not smug collaborative virtue signaling among power cliques who do the bidding of the clueless or corrupt.

    Gee, is this the same Paleomerus who tore into me when I had the temerity to suggest that certain Tea Party candidates like Akin, Angle and O’Donnell were Not Ready For Prime Time, and walked into media ambushes?

    And yes, on this issue, The Donald revealed he is Not Ready For Prime Time…..

  172. “At least Trump acknowledges the federal government must champion health care reforms—perhaps like those that mirror the more successful approaches followed in places like Germany and Japan.”

    This is wresting and returning power from the ruling class to the people? Be like Germany and Japan. Shit, that doesn’t even make a decent April Fools joke.

  173. “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” — F. A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit

    ** Make America great again with a design like Germany and Japan. ** — Peter Morici, Breitbart

  174. adopted Alinski

    Ah yes, again like tweeting out a viciously unflattering photograph of one’s electoral primary adversary’s wife alongside a carefully composed glamour shot of one’s own wife and comment “a picture better than a thousand words”. Right, not an Alinsky move at all. Or inducing one’s good pal David Pecker to publish smears made up from whole cloth alleging one’s adversary is an adulterous sleaze. Once more, not an Alinsky move at all. Or gaslighting and smearing a weak female reporter as if she were the very spawn of satan in her lying ways, when she’s done nothing but grouse about manhandling she actually experienced. But let’s do speak of hypocrisy as if that were meaningful.

  175. Ok sdferr, what’s your healthcare plan? Repeal and replace…with what? By the way, Trumps plan isn’t Germany’s plan.

    A salacious picture of Trumps wife on a Cruz mailer right before the Utah primary started it. It’s called punching back.

    Saying Trump incited the Cruz hooked story is a smear in itself. Are you a vulgarian?

    A weak female reporter? Oh brother. First off, if that was a male reporter he would have been laughed at, second she said she was assaulted and pushed to the ground, which is a lie. That you are so ready to smear him with. Vulgarian?

    Anyway, I’m done defending the Don. It’s a waste of time. The man could sell all he owns and give it to the poor, take the vows of a monk and spend the rest of hiss days administering to the sick in a leper colony, and you would just sneer he is trying to buy his way into heaven. So, do carry on…

  176. Hey, if Trump wants to punch back at Liz Mair, let him have at it: no need to lie that his opponent was involved where he wasn’t involved. No need for you to lie about it either. But hey, choices. And induced isn’t incited. Read.

    Weak female reporter never said she was pushed to the ground. Again, go listen. But then Trump’s man-servant said he never touched her. You really should chose something other than easily disprovable lies to make a stand on.

  177. As to so-called “healthcare plan”, let’s just think for a few minutes about the thrust of F. A. Hayek’s observation about plans and designs, shall we? (No one is possessed of such all encompassing knowledge, nor can they be.)

    How about getting government out of making such grandiose plans for hundreds of millions of people, and instead let those people be free, be at liberty to make their own arrangements at a more specific and local level of judgment, where they will tend to know far better than suits in Washington D.C. what is in their own private interests for their own private good. Less wasteful too, more efficient: doesn’t spend wealth where wealth needn’t be spent. Doesn’t put power in the hands of those who do not know properly what to do with it.

  178. My bad, she claimed to be NEARLY knocked to the ground

    Still, exaggeration and a far cry from assault. Unless you have a political agenda of course.

  179. So, no vaccinations?

    What happens when whooping cough spreads through the poorer part of the population that can’t afford a doctor?

    I mean, where do contagious and debilitating diseases come in for your government free non plan healthcare?

  180. Who said anything about no vaccinations? Hmm, that o’erweening desire to be in charge truly does die hard, doesn’t it?

    But let’s stop and think a minute: where does that name “vaccine” come from? Oh, yeah, vaca, cow. As in cowpox and inoculation with cowpox.

    But whoa, was there a Federal dept. of healthcare to see to the spread of vaccine when vaccine was discovered? And yet, did vaccine spread widely in the absence of such a Federal control? Wow, what might be!

  181. Or perhaps the desire isn’t so much everyone’s urge to be in charge as to have their hands held every minute of the day by big daddy and mommy government? Yes, well that too.

  182. “The Donald revealed he is Not Ready For Prime Time ”

    We are way way past ‘Not Ready for PrimeTime ‘ I don’t much care about not ready for primetime.

    This is not a reaction to a booboo.

    This man is a fish-eyed con who looks you in the eyes and automatically lies to you based on what he guesses you want to hear or will accept and the rest of the time he is bludgeoning inciting slandering and pandering to conspiracy nuts.

    He’s not having packaging problems.

    He is always selling no matter what. He is empty, false, lacks any trace of integrity. If Trump knew what a nuclear Tripod/Triad is or what common pro-life tennets were it would not improve him. A diligent methodical studied con is not an improvement on a lazy sloppy intuitive one.

    They both want to skin you.

  183. I’m not worried about outsider running ( a position I may need to reconsider given Ben carson’s….whatever that was).

    I am very worried about a metaphorical ghoul taking the form of an outsider and disguising signs of the presence of supernatural evil as a few entirely understandable Unfrozen Caveman Lawyerisms.

  184. On the subject of Health Care done right –like they do it in Germany

    It was the Progressives who first introduced into this country the idea that we need to emulate the Germans because they were so good at solving Big Problems in Big Ways.

    One of the things Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson agreed about.

    And just the other night. That Paragon of Conservatism Rightly Understood, David Brooks of the New York Times was telling Charlie Rose that we have Big Problems that require Big Institutions. The same Big Institutions that have been failing to solve Big Problems for more than half a century now. So I guess that makes Paul “the stimulus wasn’t big enough” Krugman a conservative economist.

    So again, I express my bewonderment that Trump has failed to lock down the support of the American Greatness Conservatives, as represented by David Brooks and Bill Kristol.

  185. We are way way past ‘Not Ready for PrimeTime ‘ I don’t much care about not ready for primetime.

    This is not a reaction to a booboo.

    This man is a fish-eyed con who looks you in the eyes and automatically lies to you based on what he guesses you want to hear or will accept and the rest of the time he is bludgeoning inciting slandering and pandering to conspiracy nuts.

    He’s not having packaging problems.

    He is always selling no matter what. He is empty, false, lacks any trace of integrity. If Trump knew what a nuclear Tripod/Triad is or what common pro-life tenets were it would not improve him. A diligent methodical studied con is not an improvement on a lazy sloppy intuitive one.

    They both want to skin you.

    And yet, for all that, he is still leagues better, and leagues less damaging, than Clitler, let alone Burny.

    Because frankly, a lazy sloppy intuitive con artist IS an improvement on a diligent methodical studied one.

    After all, Trump never fabricated “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot”, or “A War On Women”, or “A Rape Culture”, or “Micr0aggressions”. He never burned cities down or tried to ruin an academic’s or a professional’s or a student’s or a policeman’s life.

    It’s just not in him, whatever else is.

    That C.S. Lewis quote about the damage done by “progressives” comes to mind: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

  186. “So again, I express my bewonderment that Trump has failed to lock down the support of the American Greatness Conservatives, as represented by David Brooks and Bill Kristol.”

    And again, as pointed out before, he’s a loose cannon, a wild card, and above all, a nationalist, who really isn’t in the Globalist Establishment Club.

    So, in your mind, does that make Trump The Crude better because the Globalist Establishment does not like him, or does that make the Globalist Establishment better because they don’t like Trump The Crude?

    The difference in opinion between you and LBascom summarized.

  187. Yeah but Hayek is an Austrian — ja ja ja — just another clever name for disguising a German. Gotta be equally bad. We gonna emulate that stooge?

  188. Trump never fabricated

    That one right there is worth a couple of minutes reflection.

    Fabricated ever, anything, with his hands? But fabricate a lie a minute, oh baby, he’s a genius at it.

  189. “After all, Trump never fabricated “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot”, or “A War On Women”, or “A Rape Culture”, or “Micr0aggressions”. He never burned cities down or tried to ruin an academic’s or a professional’s or a student’s or a policeman’s life.

    That’s bullshit. He’s selling Michelle Fields as a crazy who his campaign manager never touched or even met…er…didn’t fully throw to the floor but OMG she had a pen! She touched him! That’s assault first! The video proves she;s lying somehow or something!

    And it seems plenty of people are eager to regurgitate this strange ever-mutating narrative try and make it our new reality. Eric Bowling threw her off of Cashin-In over this.

    What’s better about this kind of con-man again?

    I don’t see the better part.

  190. Lyin’ ted is a Canadian and Natural Birth citizenship is up for grabs by who ever has the pluckiest lawyer? We had a sub zero GDP last year? Cruz is an estab globalist? Hamas will listen to Trump because he’s Midas?

    I do no see any less preposterous toxic bullshit being shoveled at me by the ‘corny off the cuff’ con man than the long trained Manchurian candidate or his next in lines.

  191. Somehow Tammany Hall 2.0 w/ Boss Trump going national seems just as bad as a 75 year old young socialist or the current semi-mummified head of an Arkasas mafia family.

  192. This is Madame H speaking.

    I know I’m in there.

    If I don’t come out with my hands up, I’m coming in after me.

  193. She’s groping herself through the concussion protocols again . . . which, ick. Madame H groping herself just isn’t sensible.

    Meantime, who bonked the Flower in his head?

  194. James Neal, continuing to hurt the Penguins, even though he no longer is one.

    Penguins notebook: Murray ready to fill in for Fleury

    **** NEW YORK — Rookie goalie Matt Murray sat in his stall in the dressing room after the Penguins’ 5-0 win over the New York Islanders on Saturday at the Barclays Center and, with a chuckle, contemplated how to best express his mentality about becoming the team’s go-to starter with Marc-Andre Fleury sidelined because of a concussion.

    “No reservations at all,” said Murray, who turns 22 in May. “That’s what you want as a goalie. You kind of want to be the go-to guy.

    “Personally, I really don’t like sitting on the bench, especially for long periods of time, kind of like I have been lately.

    […]

    After suffering the concussion in Thursday’s win over Nashville — potentially when a shot from former teammate James Neal struck him in the head and broke his mask — Fleury did not practice Friday or travel with the team this weekend. ****

  195. My sentiment is still get well soon Fleury (and you too Stamker) — this sorta untimely injury one doesn’t wish for anybody, no matter how well a rook replacement shines.

  196. Everything okay Darleen? Haven’t seen any new posts in a while.

  197. From ES link:

    **** On Saturday, over at The Gateway Pundit, Joe Hoft put together a delegate math piece purporting to show that Cruz will be out of the running for 1237 delegates by the end of April. Hoft got that right, but his math used to get there is significantly off. What Hoft also fails to mention is that Trump will be effectively unable to reach 1237 delegates at the end of May.

    Using Hoft’s report, the Trump campaign began to echo the elimination narrative. It also realized Trump’s own path to 1237 has significantly narrowed. When Trump fails to get to 1237, Cruz has already proven he has a superior second ballot strategy.

    Hoft’s math has Cruz needing 687 delegates by the end of April. The actual number would show that Cruz would need fewer than 687 delegates by this Saturday.

    Why Hoft is Wrong

    By using the Associated Press delegate count, Hoft misses a lot of delegates already awarded. The AP count is Trump 736, Cruz 463, Kasich 143. The AP is off in Missouri, North Dakota, Colorado, and Guam. CR uses The Green Papers delegate apportionment as our base source.

    The Green Papers current delegate count has Trump at 753 delegates, Cruz 478, and Kasich 144. The Green Papers awards Cruz only 8 delegates in North Dakota. That number is actually 18 based on Cruz’s pre-convention published list. That gives Cruz 488 delegates. If the five unpledged delegates from Louisiana are accounted for, that number goes up to 493. There are also a number of other unpledged delegates that have been selected, and delegates for other candidates in the mix.

    To get to 1237, Donald Trump would need 56.9 percent of the remaining delegates, and Cruz would need 87.5 percent. This does not take into account any unbound delegates from other candidates, nor the pool of 32 unbound delegates who have thus far remained uncommitted to any one candidate.

    This is the starting point. ****

    Delegate math in Base 8.

  198. (waves from the cheap seats)

    Hi all! popping in … have I missed much?

    Got a new post up and will be back soon!

  199. “Some of you fuckers are crazy.”

    Only some? Arrogance and condescension? Yeah, that will win you friends and influence your enemies.

Leave a Reply