The GOP Nomination--The Donald and So Much More!

[Ozymandius]

 

Safe bet because no way in hell does he win the nomination. He won't rise beyond the support of Trumpeteers.

 

Right. But juuuuust in case he gets nominated, don't you want to win an easy $50 from me since Trump is an unelectable buffoon?

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

David Harsanyi from the Federalist who is a solid conservative by any reasonable standard, nails it.

 

Well written OpEd. In a fairness, however, Bush is a bit of a Trotskyite.

[3rdnlng]

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2015/08/19/have-conservatives-finally-reached-the-boiling-point/?subscriber=1

 

We can acknowledge that Donald Trump's popularity is partially related to his unapologetic defense of himself and his policies, but let's examine why that is particularly appealing to his supporters and others. How did we get to this point?

Grass-roots conservatives believe that their policies can make America great again, that they can make Americans more secure and prosperous. Many of them still believe in traditional values, which are now in disrepute.

They are appalled at the systematic assault on their ideas in our public schools, our universities, the media and Hollywood. They are horrified by the attacks on their liberties. But they have not surrendered.

They see America disintegrating rapidly and little being done to stop it. They detect no sense of urgency from their elected representatives, and they wonder whether they are living in an alternate universe.

It's true that the Republicans don't control the executive branch, but that's no excuse for always caving and giving sissified overtures of bipartisanship to an implacable bully president.

President Obama is a lawless renegade, flouting the Constitution and the rule of law and mocking his opponents as if they were the ones overreaching. But too often, Republicans sit on their hands, refusing to exercise their powers to stop him. Some even join in Obama's condemnation of those few brave souls on our side who try to stop him.

It's not just that they're impotent to stop Obama. They routinely downplay his usurpations as if they're just another day at the office. They forfeit their bully pulpit, forcing the grass roots to publicly oppose these outrages. You might call this a case of the tail wagging the dog, except that the dog, for all intents and purposes, is dead -- by suicide.

Liberal Democrats have relentlessly pressed their case, placing their propaganda mouthpieces in our educational system and dominating Hollywood and the media with a monolithically radical message. Their ideas and values are so culturally dominant that those who disagree are too afraid of the PC thought police to voice their dissent publicly. Conservatives might still hold on to a slight majority, but we are no longer just a voluntarily silent one; we're a self-muzzled one.

Why are so many good people afraid of their own shadow? Maybe the simplest explanation is that liberal propaganda has slowly succeeded in making conservatives look uncompassionate, racist, sexist and homophobic. It has even made Christians seem mean-spirited.

Liberals trade almost exclusively on identity politics, painting all Republicans and conservatives -- except those who pander to them -- as haters. Many are afraid to speak up because they know that no one would have their back. If they violated the guidelines of political correctness, they'd be excommunicated from polite society as knuckle-dragging ogres.

The irony is that liberal policies harm the people they purport to help. The welfare state has devastated the nuclear family, and black families have been hit the hardest. Their economic policies have devastated the workforce. Blacks have been hit the hardest. Their top-down education mandates serve the teachers unions but trap minority children in vastly inferior and dangerous inner-city schools. Their campaign against law enforcement and cops has turned our cities into war zones. Black youths are being hit the hardest. Their abandonment of border security and illegal grants of amnesty are putting us all at risk. Their blocking of entitlement reform is bankrupting America. Their onerous taxes and regulations are impoverishing America and destroying businesses and jobs. Blacks have been hit the hardest. Their gutting of the military and refusal to fight in the war on terror are destroying our national security. Their savage support for abortion on demand is killing millions of babies and has devalued life across the board. Black babies are hardest hit.

Conservatives know that their policies lead to greater prosperity. They believe their values are grounded in moral absolutes, are tried and tested, and are overwhelmingly beneficial to society. They believe their policies demonstrate real compassion because they are based on results, not empty rhetoric and false promises.

[GG]

 

Right. But juuuuust in case he gets nominated, don't you want to win an easy $50 from me since Trump is an unelectable buffoon?

 

 

Easiest bet, ever. He is unelectable. But he'll pull out of the process very soon, because suddenly he'll see his real estate projects that are in progress stop in dead tracks. Think about massive conflicts of interest for local authorities looking to approve multi-million dollar construction deals for a Presidential candidate. Has anyone stopped to ask this question, since we're talking about elephants in the room? Bush ended his Barclays relationship. Christie's wife quit her job. Yet Trump is still Trump. That's why no grown ups are taking him seriously. If they were, they'd be hounding him about the obvious questions about the clear conflict between his day job and his play thing.

Edited August 19, 2015 by GG

[Magox]

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2015/08/19/have-conservatives-finally-reached-the-boiling-point/?subscriber=1

 

We can acknowledge that Donald Trump's popularity is partially related to his unapologetic defense of himself and his policies, but let's examine why that is particularly appealing to his supporters and others. How did we get to this point?

Grass-roots conservatives believe that their policies can make America great again, that they can make Americans more secure and prosperous. Many of them still believe in traditional values, which are now in disrepute.

They are appalled at the systematic assault on their ideas in our public schools, our universities, the media and Hollywood. They are horrified by the attacks on their liberties. But they have not surrendered.

They see America disintegrating rapidly and little being done to stop it. They detect no sense of urgency from their elected representatives, and they wonder whether they are living in an alternate universe.

It's true that the Republicans don't control the executive branch, but that's no excuse for always caving and giving sissified overtures of bipartisanship to an implacable bully president.

President Obama is a lawless renegade, flouting the Constitution and the rule of law and mocking his opponents as if they were the ones overreaching. But too often, Republicans sit on their hands, refusing to exercise their powers to stop him. Some even join in Obama's condemnation of those few brave souls on our side who try to stop him.

It's not just that they're impotent to stop Obama. They routinely downplay his usurpations as if they're just another day at the office. They forfeit their bully pulpit, forcing the grass roots to publicly oppose these outrages. You might call this a case of the tail wagging the dog, except that the dog, for all intents and purposes, is dead -- by suicide.

Liberal Democrats have relentlessly pressed their case, placing their propaganda mouthpieces in our educational system and dominating Hollywood and the media with a monolithically radical message. Their ideas and values are so culturally dominant that those who disagree are too afraid of the PC thought police to voice their dissent publicly. Conservatives might still hold on to a slight majority, but we are no longer just a voluntarily silent one; we're a self-muzzled one.

Why are so many good people afraid of their own shadow? Maybe the simplest explanation is that liberal propaganda has slowly succeeded in making conservatives look uncompassionate, racist, sexist and homophobic. It has even made Christians seem mean-spirited.

Liberals trade almost exclusively on identity politics, painting all Republicans and conservatives -- except those who pander to them -- as haters. Many are afraid to speak up because they know that no one would have their back. If they violated the guidelines of political correctness, they'd be excommunicated from polite society as knuckle-dragging ogres.

The irony is that liberal policies harm the people they purport to help. The welfare state has devastated the nuclear family, and black families have been hit the hardest. Their economic policies have devastated the workforce. Blacks have been hit the hardest. Their top-down education mandates serve the teachers unions but trap minority children in vastly inferior and dangerous inner-city schools. Their campaign against law enforcement and cops has turned our cities into war zones. Black youths are being hit the hardest. Their abandonment of border security and illegal grants of amnesty are putting us all at risk. Their blocking of entitlement reform is bankrupting America. Their onerous taxes and regulations are impoverishing America and destroying businesses and jobs. Blacks have been hit the hardest. Their gutting of the military and refusal to fight in the war on terror are destroying our national security. Their savage support for abortion on demand is killing millions of babies and has devalued life across the board. Black babies are hardest hit.

Conservatives know that their policies lead to greater prosperity. They believe their values are grounded in moral absolutes, are tried and tested, and are overwhelmingly beneficial to society. They believe their policies demonstrate real compassion because they are based on results, not empty rhetoric and false promises.

 

Ironically, a Trump nomination would lead to an even more fiscally liberalized country. Not because what he would do, but because he would get defeated so badly that the GOP would end up losing the house and the Senate. i.e welcome to rainbow farting Utopia.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Magox

[Ozymandius]

 

 

Easiest bet, ever. He is unelectable. But he'll pull out of the process very soon, because suddenly he'll see his real estate projects that are in progress stop in dead tracks. Think about massive conflicts of interest for local authorities looking to approve multi-million dollar construction deals for a Presidential candidate. Has anyone stopped to ask this question, since we're talking about elephants in the room? Bush ended his Barclays relationship. Christie's wife quit her job. Yet Trump is still Trump. That's why no grown ups are taking him seriously. If they were, they'd be hounding him about the obvious questions about the clear conflict between his day job and his play thing.

 

So, that's a yes, then?

[meazza]

 

So, that's a yes, then?

 

You realize that you agree with skeletor?

[keepthefaith]

 

So, that's a yes, then?

I won't take the bet because I think Trump could win the Nomination and the election. Not my #1 choice but his rising support is surprising. Anyone here that won't take the bet but posts that he has no chance is a kitty.

[GG]

I won't take the bet because I think Trump could win the Nomination and the election. Not my #1 choice but his rising support is surprising. Anyone here that won't take the bet but posts that he has no chance is a kitty.

 

 

As I said, the easiest bet this year.

[3rdnlng]

 

Ironically, a Trump nomination would lead to an even more fiscally liberalized country. Not because what he would do, but because he would get defeated so badly that the GOP would end up losing the house and the Senate. i.e welcome to rainbow farting Utopia.

I hope you aren't thinking that I am a Trump supporter. He's a brash non pc loudmouth that I doubt has any real convictions or a conservative philosophical bent. That's what makes him simultaneously hated and acclaimed. I think his supporters admire his say anything and phuck you if you don't like it attitude, but haven't really taken a look at the positions he's spouted off on. Do they really think that we are going to deport 13 million people and make Mexico build a fence? My post and linked article that you responded to addressed the frustration that many of us feel with the direction this country has taken. We desperately need a strong conservative leader who can speak frankly but with a sense of humor and warmth. Something like that guy that sent Jimmy Carter back to Georgia. (I wish Fred Thompson had the fire in his gut to want the Presidency.) Yes, I do want someone who will call a spade a spade and use the word niggardly and not be afraid that the morons of this world will be upset. More importantly though I want a leader with a strong sense of morality and character. I want that person to put the country first and be able to communicate that to the nation. In other words, I want the opposite of Harry Reid.

[Magox]

I hope you aren't thinking that I am a Trump supporter. He's a brash non pc loudmouth that I doubt has any real convictions or a conservative philosophical bent. That's what makes him simultaneously hated and acclaimed. I think his supporters admire his say anything and phuck you if you don't like it attitude, but haven't really taken a look at the positions he's spouted off on. Do they really think that we are going to deport 13 million people and make Mexico build a fence? My post and linked article that you responded to addressed the frustration that many of us feel with the direction this country has taken. We desperately need a strong conservative leader who can speak frankly but with a sense of humor and warmth. Something like that guy that sent Jimmy Carter back to Georgia. (I wish Fred Thompson had the fire in his gut to want the Presidency.) Yes, I do want someone who will call a spade a spade and use the word niggardly and not be afraid that the morons of this world will be upset. More importantly though I want a leader with a strong sense of morality and character. I want that person to put the country first and be able to communicate that to the nation. In other words, I want the opposite of Harry Reid.

 

Ok, got ya.

[keepthefaith]

I hope you aren't thinking that I am a Trump supporter. He's a brash non pc loudmouth that I doubt has any real convictions or a conservative philosophical bent. That's what makes him simultaneously hated and acclaimed. I think his supporters admire his say anything and phuck you if you don't like it attitude, but haven't really taken a look at the positions he's spouted off on. Do they really think that we are going to deport 13 million people and make Mexico build a fence? My post and linked article that you responded to addressed the frustration that many of us feel with the direction this country has taken. We desperately need a strong conservative leader who can speak frankly but with a sense of humor and warmth. Something like that guy that sent Jimmy Carter back to Georgia. (I wish Fred Thompson had the fire in his gut to want the Presidency.) Yes, I do want someone who will call a spade a spade and use the word niggardly and not be afraid that the morons of this world will be upset. More importantly though I want a leader with a strong sense of morality and character. I want that person to put the country first and be able to communicate that to the nation. In other words, I want the opposite of Harry Reid.

I'd like the same. Not sure that person is running, but a few might be close.

[Magox]

I'm on my iPad, below is an article from Politico.

 

 

 

 

Donald Trump has singlehandedly changed the standard for what it takes to be considered conservative on immigration, as one GOP presidential contender after another joins his call to end birthright citizenship.

Seemingly settled more than a century ago with the passage of the 14th Amendment and an 1898 Supreme Court ruling, the policy that automatically grants citizenship to basically anyone born on U.S. soil is suddenly driving a rift through the 2016 GOP presidential field — and triggering heartburn among conservative figures concerned about a backlash from Latinos in the general election.

 

 

Though some of Trump’s more mainstream Republican opponents, such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, have quickly distanced themselves from the business mogul’s stance, several other prominent candidates, including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, have embraced it.

And that’s distressingly bad news to conservatives who say the spectacle is setting up the party for a repeat of Mitt Romney’s dismal showing among Latino voters in 2012. The division within the GOP over whether to provide immigrants here illegally with a pathway to citizenship has given way to a new litmus test on the right.

“It’s a terrible idea. It’s a politically insane idea. It can’t be done. It’s impossible to achieve,” said Peter Wehner, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and former official in the George W. Bush White House. “So what’s the point? It’s symbolism and it’s exactly the wrong kind of symbolism. If Republicans want to make this their symbol … they’ll pay a high price for it.”

 

 

 

“We should end granting automatic birthright citizenship to the children of those who are here illegally,” Cruz told radio host Michael Medved.

 

Libre Initiative Executive Director Daniel Garza, whose nonpartisan group is focused on promoting conservative principles among Latinos, says his organization “vehemently” opposes revoking birthright citizenship and called the issue a divisive one.

“The call to rescind birthright citizenship goes well beyond the call for ‘self-deportation,’” Garza said. “You are talking about a massive institutional revision. That is not gonna happen. But just driving that narrative is just going to split people.”

Data already show the GOP will have to make up considerable ground from Romney’s performance among Latinos in 2012, when the former Massachusetts governor lost the Latino vote to President Barack Obama by a whopping 44-point margin, according to exit polls.

The polling firm Latino Decisions projected in July that the Republican nominee will need to secure 47 percent of the Latino vote in November 2016 to win the popular vote — a 20-point boost from Romney’s showing in the last cycle.

And some Republicans believe a prolonged focus on birthright citizenship will severely damage that cause.

Alfonso Aguilar, a former official in the George W. Bush administration, said the birthright citizenship issue is flooding through Spanish-language media and added of Latinos: “This is what they’re hearing every day. They find it insulting.”

 

---snip---

 

In particular, he pointed to Walker, a leading GOP hopeful who has already endorsed more conservative views on immigration than other mainstream Republicans, as a candidate who is “done” because of his support for ending birthright citizenship.

“He was already aligning himself with those who say legal immigration suppresses wages, and that was already toxic,” said Aguilar, who now runs the American Principles Project’s Latino Partnership, which advocates for conservative causes among Latinos. “But with this, I can guarantee you: He’s not going anywhere. He’s gonna be destroyed with Latinos.”

The political retribution against the GOP in the general election will be much more acute if Republicans nominate someone who’s embraced ending birthright citizenship, Wehner said. But if the nominee is someone who’s rejected the policy — like Bush or Rubio — that would lessen the damage, he added.

Democrats have pounded Republican candidates over birthright citizenship. In a memo sent to reporters Wednesday, the Democratic National Committee highlighted the depth of support for ending birthright citizenship among the GOP presidential contenders.

“Attacking and criminalizing children — let alone citizen children born to immigrant parents — is the lowest form of political buffoonery … even for the GOP,” read the memo from Pablo Manriquez, the DNC’s Hispanic media director.

Past polls have found that Americans are divided over whether birthright citizenship should be revoked. An August 2010 poll from CBS News found that 49 percent of Americans said the birthright citizenship policy should stay, while 47 percent said it should be changed.

About 4.1 million U.S. citizen children were born to undocumented immigrants, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

In an interview, Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, called the rise of the birthright citizenship debate “dark and demagogic.”

“The American people often disagree on what the best approach should be to fixing the immigration system,” Moore said. “But we have veered off now into a rhetorical targeting of immigrants themselves. The use of language such as ‘anchor babies’ is disgusting.”

Despite the criticism, Trump hasn’t relented from his views.

The businessman and GOP front-runner doubled down on his position Tuesday night during an interview with Fox News, insisting that children born to undocumented immigrants while on American grounds don’t have U.S. citizenship and arguing that his view would prevail in court.

“I don’t think they have American citizenship, and if you speak to some very, very good lawyers — some would disagree,” Trump told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. “But many of them agree with me — you’re going to find they do not have American citizenship. We have to start a process where we take back our country. Our country is going to hell. We have to start a process, Bill, where we take back our country.”

The persistent focus on birthright citizenship is infuriating to those like Garza, who’s worked to promote conservative causes among the broader Latino community.

“You are talking about withholding equal opportunity from people because of what their parents did,” Garza said. “That is yeah … you know.”

He then sighed.

“Sometimes there are no words to express,” Garza added. “When you hear something like that, it’s gone beyond the pale.”

 

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/donald-trump-sets-new-immigration-litmus-test-121537.html#ixzz3jJSdiVvF

[Rob's House]

Another perk of Trump is it gets right-wing infighting going and shows where the philosophical lines that divide us are, rather than being one seemingly monolithic anti-Democrat group.

[Ozymandius]

 

 

As I said, the easiest bet this year.

 

I'll take that as a yes. 2 bettors against me = potential $100 loss by me if unelectable Trump can't beat the Democratic nominee

Edited August 20, 2015 by Ozymandius

[....lybob]

One of the things conservatives tend to believe is that America is a meritocracy that the rich got that way by being smarter, working harder and having the right moral fiber while the poor are dumb, lazy and unmoral. Since Trump is the richest GOP candidate wouldn't it stand to reason that the GOP electorate would view him as the smartest, hardest working and most moral candidate.

[Azalin]

One of the things conservatives tend to believe is that America is a meritocracy that the rich got that way by being smarter, working harder and having the right moral fiber while the poor are dumb, lazy and unmoral. Since Trump is the richest GOP candidate wouldn't it stand to reason that the GOP electorate would view him as the smartest, hardest working and most moral candidate.

 

I don't believe that's a fair assessment of how conservatives think. I would agree with you in part, but I think a more accurate description of the conservative mindset is that successful people got that way in part by being smart, working hard, sticking with their goals after experiencing failure, and not giving up. I've known a handful of wealthy people who had financial independence by being born into it, but I've known many more that got that way by working for it, and spending many years of their lives in doing so. Persistence is as much of an element of success in the conservative (and libertarian too) mind as anything else, if not the most important. I don't really see how morality has a direct effect on a person's success.

 

The poor are that way for a reason. Either they're down on their luck, are incapable of effectively taking care of themselves, or are satisfied living off public assistance. There's no way to legislate luck, so getting around bad luck takes persistence in trying to better one's self. People incapable of taking care of themselves should always have public assistance to help them at least have a decent quality of life - I don't think anyone here, no matter how conservative they are, would deny them that. When it comes to those who are satisfied doing nothing but getting by on welfare, their assistance should be limited so they are eventually forced to go out into the workplace. There are plenty of grants and guaranteed student loans that will assist them in going to a tech school, trade school, or community college. They have all the same opportunities that a typical American working class person has in getting ahead in life.

[B-Man]

One of the things conservatives tend to believe is that America is a meritocracy that the rich got that way by being smarter, working harder and having the right moral fiber while the poor are dumb, lazy and unmoral. Since Trump is the richest GOP candidate wouldn't it stand to reason that the GOP electorate would view him as the smartest, hardest working and most moral candidate.

 

 

You never know whether to laugh or cry when you read some of the delusions about "what conservatives tend to believe"

 

That was a prime example.

 

.

Edited August 20, 2015 by B-Man

[Adam]

 

 

You never know whether to laugh or cry when you read some of the delusions about "what conservatives tend to believe"

 

That was a prime example.

 

.

I can't disagree with you (and I'm not referring to the previous post, as I didn't read it specifically). The electorate is basically told they have to believe everything their party tells them and then vote for the lesser of two evils. It keeps them oblivious to the fact that doing just that keeps the ineffectiveness in place that they claim to hate so much.

[Magox]

Quinnipiac looks at Florida, Ohio and PA to see who does best in the one to one matchups vs. Hillary.

 

There is only one candidate that they polled that would beat her in all three states.