Trump: I Like the ObamaCare Mandate
The most unpopular part of Obamacare now has a champion in the Republican presidential field. Via the Right Scoop, Donald Trump was asked on Thursday night by CNN’s Anderson Cooper, “If…there’s no mandate for everybody to have insurance, what’s to—why would an insurance company not have a preexisting—insure somebody with a preexisting condition?” Trump replied, “Well, I like the mandate. Okay, so here’s where I’m a little bit different. I don’t want people dying on the streets. And I say this all the time.”
Well, that’s certainly “a little bit different”—in fact, it’s hard to get a lot more “different” than to run for president as a Republican and support the hated cornerstone of President Obama’s signature legislation. This “mandate for everybody to have insurance” is, of course, the unprecedented requirement that, for the first time in the more than 200 years of United States history, private American citizens must buy a product or service of the federal government’s choosing merely as a condition of living in their own country.
I mentioned this in the post last night, but it deserves its own thread.
Trump fans will have to answer for a lot of the wrongs they’re about to hoist upon this country.
Sean (221079) — 2/19/2016 @ 7:32 amTrump is a democrat
Always been a democrat
Always be a democrat
Like duh!
joe - texas (fa6bbe) — 2/19/2016 @ 7:33 amI has to be becoming harder and harder for people to support Trump. it just has to!
Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27) — 2/19/2016 @ 7:44 amCome on, ropelight. You have to admit the Trump of today, “Well, I like the mandate” is nowhere near like the Trump of yesterday: “I’m gonna build a wall and I’m gonna make Mexico pay for it”. It’s time to move on to an honest, level-headed grown up ropelight. We welcome you! Don’t be afraid.
Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27) — 2/19/2016 @ 7:49 amSome woman called in to Limbaugh yesterday almost in tears. Due to the requirements of Obamacare, they lost their old insurance and are now getting dinged for $20,000 in extra costs per year. They hope to hold out until Medicare.
She is 100% for Trump. I wonder if she read this.
Patricia (5fc097) — 2/19/2016 @ 7:52 amthe problem is robertscare is like the hellraiser puzzlebox, the nature of the package that was configured, with contraception, and birth assistance, except under 30, well it’s a nightmare,
narciso (732bc0) — 2/19/2016 @ 8:00 amyes yes mandates are manhattantrash values
first it’s banning going without health cares next him and his hooker wife will ban big gulps
Not nice!
happyfeet (831175) — 2/19/2016 @ 8:24 amHoagie, it’s not getting harder to support Trump, at least for me, it’s getting easier. The Cruz supporters who signal admiration for the Canadian Candidate by spewing hatred for Trump and by extension insults at anyone to backs their version of evil incarnate seem to have settled down or exhausted their inventory of taunts. At least for now I’m no longer public enemy #1, likely it’ll pick-up as the vote in South Carolina approaches. TDS runs deep with Cruz’s cadre of hate mongers.
(It’s an interesting phenomena, unsatisfied to simply support Cruz, the more fervent of his backers are obsessed with destroying Trump and Rubio and insulting their supporters. It’s the politics of personal destruction, and in the long run it does more harm than good to all involved on both sides.)
But, stupid is as stupid does. Unfortunately some of our citizens can’t agree to disagree and focus on the issues that unite us instead of personal insults that divide us. And, yes, I count myself among those who succumb to name calling and finger pointing. Patterico had to call me down on it recently. So, I’m trying to improve.
ropelight (ed34e6) — 2/19/2016 @ 8:33 amHey Pat.
You weren’t dealing complete verity in this post. I saw the rerun of the Donald Trump segment on CNN.
He was clearly talking about Medicare and Social Security with regard to “mandate”. That he wants to fix them so they don’t go bankrupt, as they are in the course of doing. They already take that chunk out of our paychecks.
Not Obamacare.
Definitions are important.
Going to have to look deep in the woods when Pat disparages Trump without a link to the source.
Lesson learned.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/19/2016 @ 8:45 amdo you have a link of the clip Mr. tiger
i would love to see this now
happyfeet (831175) — 2/19/2016 @ 8:51 ami hear him say he likes the mandate
happyfeet (831175) — 2/19/2016 @ 8:56 amAccording to Patterico’s link to The Weekly Standard Trump was asked about ObamaCare and he responded as indicated. I sure looks like Trump said he likes the (ObamaCare) mandate.
ropelight (ed34e6) — 2/19/2016 @ 8:58 amin defense of trump i will say that he does say he wants to repeal the horrific grotesquerie of obamacare
he’ll have to get his plan through an R dominated congress
and yes they’re sleazy heavily-bearded wiscotrash types like Paul Ryan and loser backboneless cowards like Meghan’s Coward Daddy
but at the end of the day whether the mandate stands or falls is not all on Mr. Trump
this could just be his opening position in negotiations – the idea here seems to be that the mandate is how you keep it to where you can keep the piece about not denying coverage to people what have “pre-existing conditions”
and i would hope people would not die in the streets this is why we have alleys
happyfeet (831175) — 2/19/2016 @ 9:11 amTrump has said, “when I am president I will get along with the politicians in DC”…
I thought we wanted someone that wasn’t going to go along with the politicians if DC….
Only Cruz is hated by the career politicians….. So why is this twisted into a negative by the media and then fawned over by the voters?
Only Cruz has shown that he will NOT go along to get along with DC politicians.
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 2/19/2016 @ 9:19 amThat’s why I’m for Cruz, jrt for Cruz. I don’t want him to “get along” and I don’t want a deal maker. I want a mean ole curmudgeon who punches Harry Reid’s other side ad tells the Dept. of Education Bye-bye, for one.
Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27) — 2/19/2016 @ 9:36 amAs others have pointed out, the Trump cause is a populist/nationalist movement similar to the European style right. So, issues like this don’t bother them since, like European right parties, they’re not against government IF they think the government is benefiting them, working on their behalf. All of this talk about reining it in and limiting it isn’t, right now, of interest. Talk to a Trump supporter about such issues and it’ll go right over their heads. They don’t care. At least right now they don’t.
They’re not anti-government; they’re anti-government that is in the service of the elites or others who have benefited from the past policies on immigration and trade. THAT’s the government they want to blow up. Trump is against reforming the entitlement programs; that, for his supporters, is a plus since many benefit from these programs.
Trump’s support for a mandate will have no effect on these types. If he came out explicitly for national healthcare that wouldn’t hurt him much either.
The problem for the other conservative candidates is that it’s nearly impossible to co-opt or take away these supporters. No one can win them over because to do so requires abandoning core conservative beliefs.
If you were to design a candidate whose purpose was to blowup the Republican Party you would be hard pressed to come up with one better for that than Trump. Whether Trump wins the nomination or not, the end of the modern GOP is at hand. All of these contradictions on the right and center right are emerging and it can’t be held together any longer.
SteveMG (1b22e7) — 2/19/2016 @ 10:15 amBy Jove, I think Steve’s onto something. Blowing up the GOPe is a powerful element in Support for Trump. Conservatives have been stabbed in the back too many times to forego an opportunity to return the favor.
If it takes a Trump presidency to pound a stake through the heart of the Stupid Party then the sooner the better. Never has a self-serving group of two-faced insolent jerks had to stare down the barrels of a shotgun aimed right between their eyes and seeing ahead to what’s coming to them, what they’ve earned time out of mind.
The GOP will adapt to serve the Conservative base or it will cease to exist as a viable political party. Evolution or destruction, one or the other, right now.
ropelight (ed34e6) — 2/19/2016 @ 10:57 amSome questions I’ve always wanted to ask political candidates:
1) What are the limits on the government’s ability to force me to buy a product? If the government can force me to buy one product, can it force me to buy another? If yes, what products are subject to such a mandate? If not, why not?
2) If the government can take from me the tangible property that provides the means that I would use to support myself and my family, and provide for my retirement (money), and give it to another person (taking a small cut for administrative expenses, of course), can it also then take another tangible item that I own, say, my car or my television, and give it to another person? Why or why not?
Diffus (7b30f9) — 2/19/2016 @ 11:04 amThe federal government cannot force you to buy anything (unless it comes under one of the enumerated powers, e.g. under the militia clause it could force you to buy a gun). There is no 0bamacare mandate. There is a tax on income, which you can choose to pay, or get it waived by buying insurance. For many people that tax is easily affordable and a reasonable alternative to insurance, and the government has budgeted for the revenue it will get from it. This is what makes it constituitonal, according to the Supreme Court decision written by Chief Justice Roberts. If the tax is ever raised to a punitive level it stops being a tax and starts being an unconstitutional penalty, and thus disappears.
The government can’t just swoop in and take your TV or your money. It can impose a general tax on some activity, such as earning income, or watching television, and I suppose it could collect this tax in kind, if it liked. But it can’t impose a direct tax, i.e. a tax on a person or object merely for existing, so for instance it could tax the act of buying a TV, but not the fact that you own one. Or rather, it can impose direct taxes, but they would have to be apportioned among the states according to their populations, and nobody seems to know what that means, for anything more complicated than a flat rate poll tax.
Milhouse (facd37) — 2/19/2016 @ 11:23 ameventually the penalties become prohibitive, after they’ve forced most of the insurers out of the private market, like malware, robertscare is progressively debilitating,
narciso (732bc0) — 2/19/2016 @ 11:26 amhttp://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/19/3750758/what-if-donald-trump-wins-inside-his-plans-for-the-supreme-court/
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 2/19/2016 @ 11:37 amSome questions I’ve always wanted to ask political candidates:
1) What are the limits on the government’s ability to force me to buy a product? If the government can force me to buy one product, can it force me to buy another? If yes, what products are subject to such a mandate? If not, why not?
2) If the government can take from me the tangible property that provides the means that I would use to support myself and my family, and provide for my retirement (money), and give it to another person (taking a small cut for administrative expenses, of course), can it also then take another tangible item that I own, say, my car or my television, and give it to another person? Why or why not?
Diffus. First things first. You need to let us know what “government” you are talking about. If its states, yes, they do have that right. Its generally noted that State government does have police power in this regard. While i may disagree from an economic policy standpoint, i raise no constitutional issues in regards to my state, Illinois, having the requirement to acquire insurance for my motor vehicle as a precondition to my driving my car or having the right to take personal property from me in furtherance of some public interest.
In regards to your questions with regard to the Federal Government, ever since the SCOTUS decision in Wickard, the government has encroached on these rights. Do i agree, on a constitutional basis? No. I believe overturning wickard would be a good thing. That, or amend the constitution to expand the commerce clause.
JeffreyL (2eddb6) — 2/19/2016 @ 11:43 amThere is no mandate, but one is not unprecedented; in 1792 Congress required all free able-bodied white male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 to buy a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Its authority to do so came, not from the international and interstate commerce clause, but from the militia clause. And of course states are free to require people to buy whatever they like, so long as their state constitutions allow it.
Milhouse (facd37) — 2/19/2016 @ 11:49 amIf they do they stop being constitutional and disappear.
Milhouse (facd37) — 2/19/2016 @ 11:50 amThe commerce clause, even in its current grotesquely expanded state, does not allow the federal governemnt to require someone to engage in commerce. It can prohibit or restrict commerce, but it can’t require it. The 0bamacare “mandate” tax is authorized under the tax clause, not under the commerce clause.
Milhouse (facd37) — 2/19/2016 @ 11:53 amBlowing up the GOPe is a powerful element in Support for Trump. Conservatives have been stabbed in the back too many times to forego an opportunity to return the favor.
Well, this is not some great revelation on my part. Just read the comments from his supporters.
If Trump fixes the border and reasserts US sovereignty over who comes in – perhaps add a dash of protectionism – then his supporters don’t care if the GOP is shattered along the way. In fact, they probably view it as an extra benefit.
That’s short sighted, of course. Trump will need support/votes along the way. Assuming he’s elected (very doubtful but conventional wisdom is dead nowadays) then I don’t see how he can assemble a coalition out of the shattered GOP and bits of Democrats. It’s not there. Not on immigration.
Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold.
SteveMG (1b22e7) — 2/19/2016 @ 12:03 pmropelight, you’re wrong — again.
I could cheerfully vote for any other GOP candidate; Ted Cruz is my favorite, but if he loses the nomination to Rubio, I can happily accept that and campaign and vote for the GOP in the fall. I would be just as outspoken in my opposition to Trump even if Ted Cruz dropped out of the race tomorrow (which he won’t).
It is true that I despise Donald Trump. I’ve hated him since at least the early 1990s. Back then, politics had nothing to do with it. I hated him because he’s a liar and a cheat, because he screws over hardworking Americans by his fraud and his bankruptcies. I knew about those things because in the 1980s and 1990s, I was a BigLaw lawyer who paid very close attention to his business deals and massive lawsuits and bankruptcies; I knew, and I’m happy to testify under oath, that Donald Trump’s reputation in the business community is not that of a success, but rather of a repeat failure, a dim bulb who makes a lot of noise, sues at the drop of his hat, breaks his word whenever the whim strikes him, and then washes out his corporate debts through the bankruptcy courts at the expense of good and decent people. (His chums like Icahn make out like bandits, though.) I disliked his vulgarity, but there are lots of vulgar, ugly people; it’s his lies and cheating that made me hate him.
Do you not hate liars and cheaters? Do you not hate the powerful and rich who think they’re above the law, who think they have the right to use and destroy ordinary Americans like they’re toilet paper? I hate those people. If you don’t see that Trump is one of them — that he’s the king of liars and cheats and con-men — then it’s not just because you’re not paying attention, it’s because you’re deliberately lying to yourself about him. Cognitive dissonance: You have it.
Now Trump’s brought those same attributes to politics. And I see him trying to pull off the biggest con job in American history. Yes, I already hated him, but I really, really hate what he’s trying to do. And my disappointment at the willful participation in his scheme by other Americans is rapidly turning into annoyance and frustration.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/19/2016 @ 12:07 pmbecause he screws over hardworking Americans by his fraud and his bankruptcies
One of the ironies – wrong word but it’ll do – is that the same people who are angry about a corrupt elite taking advantage of the rules are rallying behind a corrupt guy who took advantage of the rules.
I think a lot of people view Trump as a rich guy who did things, built things, hired people. So many wealth people nowadays seem to have made their riches manipulating the stock market and not making anything.
In defense of his supporters, though: who else is arguing for their cause? Who else is addressing their concerns? To paraphrase FDR, he may be a son of a bitch but at least he’s our son of a bitch.
SteveMG (1b22e7) — 2/19/2016 @ 12:22 pmTrump likes Obamacare mandate, Sarah Palin hit hardest.
Susan (b75f73) — 2/19/2016 @ 12:28 pmStill waiting for any Trump supporter to explain how he’d pick good SCOTUS justices when the lawyer he hires to write his cease-and-desist letter obviously hasn’t even read the First Amendment or the most basic cases on defamation law.
Tick, tock.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/19/2016 @ 12:31 pmSteveMG, I’m getting pretty sick and tired of hearing about Trump supporters and how we need to coddle and pander to them.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/19/2016 @ 12:33 pmTrump is his own son of a bitch. Name one thing he’s done, besides blowing a lot of hot air, for the ordinary American. He’s never been in public service a day in his life.
The people who think “he’s our son of a bitch” are his victims, and if he gets enough of them, then America, in turn, will be their victim.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/19/2016 @ 12:33 pmSteveMG, I’m getting pretty sick and tired of hearing about Trump supporters and how we need to coddle and pander to them.
Okay, but if you want to stop Trump that’s the only way that I can think of to do it. Attacking him is useless. If they don’t see through him by now there’s nothing more to reveal about him. What else is there to say?
I don’t see another way at this point. Somehow you have to co-opt his message. The problem is that his supporters are so distrustful of “the establishment” that it’s almost impossible to sway them.
SteveMG (1b22e7) — 2/19/2016 @ 12:40 pmGet in line. I’m waiting to find out why Trump supporters believe he’ll build a wall and make Mexico pay for it when Trump can’t figure out after how many months how to file a lawsuit to challenge Cruz’s citizenship?
Oooh, yeah, that’s right. After he becomes President, he’ll learn how to pull a trigger. He’ll be so great at it you’ll swoon. A week after he’s sworn in he’ll have forgotten more about pulling triggers then all those other Presidents ever knew combined.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/19/2016 @ 12:41 pmMr. Trump oh gosh he’s such a mess
but you have to remember he loves us and wants to help us make America great again
you have to keep remembering that
hold that idea to your heart
don’t let go!
so much depends upon our friend Mr. The Donald
glazed with rain water beside them squawky yardbirds
happyfeet (831175) — 2/19/2016 @ 12:42 pmThe people who think “he’s our son of a bitch” are his victims, and if he gets enough of them, then America, in turn, will be their victim.
You don’t need to convince me; you need to convince his supporters. And they are simply not listening.
All of these contradictions on the right, among the Republicans, are emerging and it’s nearly impossible at this stage to hold it all together. I think we see a similar break up on the liberal/left. That’s more than about Hillary’s character and shadiness. Her problems personify the view on the left that the game is rigged and she’s benefited from it.
Ironic again that she’s being held for her crony fundraising/money while Trump’s crony capitalism is being ignored.
SteveMG (1b22e7) — 2/19/2016 @ 12:44 pmHowzabout the truth, SteveMG. What is the establishment these Trump supporters so mistrust? It’s a cabal of pols willing to sell policy-making to the highest bidder. Think Billy Jeff and the Lincoln bedroom. Think Tom Steyer, who got in exchange for a billion dollar bribe an entire Senate session. It was a fake Senate session but all the key players who were bought and paid for showed up to dance like trained bears.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/10/politics/climate-change/index.html
Who is Trump? The highest bidder. Sometimes. Just like Tom Steyer.
The idea he’s not establishment is laughable.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/19/2016 @ 12:54 pmI’ve been aware of Trump’s current healthcare stance for some time, and it’s part of the reason he’s not my preference.
However, how about some fairness here? While many of us find Trump’s healthcare stance bad, wouldn’t proposing a 100 billion a year new entitlement program be worse? I say “worse” because it, like Trump’s healthcare stance, goes directly against what many of us (conservative and libertarian both) have been against. However, a new entitlement plan that costs 100 billion a year is worse because of that 100 billion a year; Trump’s healthcare *may* increase the deficit (we don’t know) but the new entitlement plan definitely will.
So, Trump is bad, but Rubio (he’s the one with the new big entitlement plan) is worse.
Arizona CJ (da673d) — 2/19/2016 @ 12:54 pmWhat I find most entertaining about Trump and his sycophants is how they whine and cry whenever someone challenges or even insults them.
Trump has called all sorts of public figures loser, ugly, stupid, dummy, punk, jerk, moron, bimbo, not American citizen, psycho, a third rate journalist, a not very good physician, et al, yet when he gets called “un-Christian,” he has a total freak out about it and insists that such name-calling is “wrong” and counter-productive to proper public discourse. (LOL)
It’s almost like these people belong to a cult…or they’re just passionate sports fans, angry that someone actually had the nerve to point out that their star player just committed an egregious foul right in front of the referee.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/19/2016 @ 12:57 pmArizona CJ,
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/19/2016 @ 1:03 pmWho’s worse; Marco Rubio or Hillary Clinton? (LOL)
Arizona CJ,
Who’s worse; Marco Rubio or Hillary Clinton? (LOL)
Cruz Supporter, that’s a hard question to answer because they’re so alike in many ways. Hillary, of course, was a prime architecht of the Libya war debacle and also the Arab Spring mess kicked off by pushing Mubarak out in Egypt. Rubio, of course, was publicly supporting her on both.
Hillary is a proven serial liar, so is Rubio. Thus, what they say at the moment means only that their lips are moving.
Hillary Clinton ran in 2008 promising new entitlement programs. Rubio is doing so now.
Immigration? Their actual records are darn near spot on, but Hillary’s is actually slightly less bad. and further, Rubio, not Hillary, would be more able to ram amnesty plus massive increases in legal immigration (including chain migration, etc, which he favors) through congress, due to being a member of the same party that is the only hope of opposing it.
Don’t believe me on any of the above claims? Ask, and I’ll provide proof.
The above list of reasons are a big part of why I won’t vote for either of them, ever, no matter what.
Arizona CJ (da673d) — 2/19/2016 @ 2:18 pmArizona CJ,
I appreciate your detailed answer.
But I have to hand it to you, you have a really bizarre interpretation of the real world that I don’t understand. That doesn’t mean I think you’re “bad,” or a “jerk.” Rather, it just means I don’t see what you see.
There isn’t a Democrat who believes that Rubio is anywhere near Clinton. You harbor an anger toward Rubio that seems to be more personal than ideological. I’m only half-joking when I inquire whether he took your lunch money one day during fourth grade recess.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/19/2016 @ 2:29 pmIt’s difficult to find other people who share your rabid opposition to Rubio’s voting record. Oh, I mean other than left wingers.
30.Still waiting for any Trump supporter to explain how he’d pick good SCOTUS justices when the lawyer he hires to write his cease-and-desist letter obviously hasn’t even read the First Amendment or the most basic cases on defamation law.
Tick, tock.
……………….
I only posted what Trump would campaign on as his picks. Trump has stated he will get along with everyone in DC. This means he will pander to the left far better than the establishment. My question is….. If Trump thinks he would be such a great political servant to the people, Why hasn’t he seriously occupied any political office in NYC?
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 2/19/2016 @ 2:41 pmAlthough I was premature in supposing they’d settled down, too many commenters on this thread exemplify the point I made at #8. Hysterical assaults on Trump and his supporters don’t persuade anyone of anything other than the attackers have poisoned themselves with hatred.
ropelight (ed34e6) — 2/19/2016 @ 2:46 pmArizona CJ, your comparisons assume that the listed violations were of equal gravity. That’s a fallacious assumption.
Regarding serial liars: Everyone has lied at some point during their lives, if only “white lies” designed to spare feelings. “Does this make my butt look big?” I am a serial liar on that subject.
So let’s stipulate, for purposes of this argument, without running through any of them in detail, that you could find some particular example of Marco Rubio telling something you deem to be a lie, and that I’d agree with you about that particular lie after looking into the particulars.
Whatever your very best example is, though, could not conceivably compare to Hillary’s participation in the Benghazi video fraud to paint that attack, on the anniversary of 9/11/01, and on the brink of the 2012 election, as something besides a terrorist attack.
Marco Rubio, with all due respect to his career accomplishments in state and federal government (and they’re considerable), hasn’t ever been in as consequential a position as Hillary Clinton was on 9/11/12, meaning he can’t possibly have ever told a lie as malignant as that one.
And I’m also sure we could very, very quickly agree on dozens of other lies that Hillary Clinton has told, going back well before the first Clinton term. As Jonah Goldberg pointed out last year:
That was Hillary lying, while First Lady, about how she was the conduit for political payoffs and favors intended as payoff for Bill Clinton’s corrupt political favors. What was Rubio doing in those days? He was in college and law school.
So it’s not just a false and unsupportable comparison, it’s an impossible comparison. If you think you can weigh Marco Rubio’s purported sins, whatever they may be, up against the Clintons in terms of consequentiality, duration, depravity, moral blameworthiness, or whatever, your internal scales are clearly broken.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/19/2016 @ 2:50 pmLink to Goldberg’s quote of Safire, sorry.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/19/2016 @ 2:51 pmropelight: I don’t hate Trump’s supporters. They don’t deserve that.
I hate Trump. He does deserve that.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/19/2016 @ 2:54 pmBeldar, I recognize the distinction and never intended to count you among the offenders.
ropelight (ed34e6) — 2/19/2016 @ 3:25 pmCruz Supporter (post #42)
We do indeed seem to have differing views on some things, but IMHO, that’s what makes life interesting. 🙂
The core of my problem with Rubio is he’s got a long-proven record of being the same sort of serial liar as Hillary; willing to mouth any position to get elected, then stabbing the voters in the back. He’s done this numerous times. I’m just not inclined to tolerate that level of perfidy from a candidate, and he’s by far the worst of the R field for it.
What has me most angry regarding Rubio is that the majority of his supporters don’t know his record. That’s why I yap about it so much; I’m trying to do my part to get it out there, online and off, and I’ll continue to do so until his campaign ends. If that means doing it until November so be it.
Another thing that has me angry at Rubio is the same thing that has me angry at Jeb Bush; the GOPe issue. I’m furious at the GOPe, and won’t vote for their candidate. That’s why, a year ago when this race began, I singled out two, and only two, in the vast Republican field that I could never vote for in the primary or general: Bush and Rubio. I said then what I say now; I’ll vote for any other R nominee, whether I like them or not, in November.
A further reason, I honestly do believe that a Rubio or Bush nomination would result in a loss in November. Look at the dynamics of how Romney lost: a lot or Republicans did not trust him on healthcare (a weakness Obama took full advantage of it via frequently mentioning Romneycare, even going so far as to claim it was the model for Obamacare). Result? a few percent of R voters stayed home. Now, can anyone seriously claim that nominating a GOPe candidate who also has the amnesty problem isn’t going to result in the same thing, especially in this year’s political climate?
A further reason: IMHO, it really doesn’t matter what the election result is if we end up getting amnesty/mass immigration rammed down our throats, because that will permanently alter the balance of power in this country in the Democrat’s favor (that’s why they want it) because of how the majority of those immigrants will vote (their income demographics alone ensure a majority will be D voters).
The reason I direct more fire at Rubio than Bush is there are even more problems with Rubio than Bush (Bush, for example, was not on the Senate forign relations comittee and using his post there to publicly back Hillary’s middle east disasters), and also, IMHO, Bush is less of a threat to take the nomination.
As for Rubio’s voting record, I ask a serious question: do you actually know it? I’m talking in detail, everything from Rubio’s support for sanctuary cities as a councilman and legislator to the section in Rubio’s gang of 8 bill that would have given every person on earth who simply claims to be “stateless” (such as all the current flood into Europe) instant right of entry and support (at our expense) in the USA, or some of Rubio’s recent comments such as how he’d hate to block funding for Obama’s refugee program. He’s got a very long record, and anyone considering supporting him should read it – what he voted for, what he voted against, and what he skipped.
Arizona CJ (da673d) — 2/19/2016 @ 3:42 pmArizona CJ, you have me convinced that you have a principled basis for not supporting Rubio.
But I still don’t buy, and will never buy, any comparison which suggests Rubio or any of the other GOP candidates (save Trump) is as bad as the Clintons.
When I’m at the fruit stand and I’m choosing which oranges to put in my bag, I leave behind the ones that smell under-ripe or that show transit damage or whatever. That doesn’t turn the left-behind oranges into apples.
You’ve got to prioritize and rank your villains, and recognize that some of them are villainous on a genuinely cosmic scale, while others may be simply Republican politicians whom you deem insufficiently conservative (or whatever).
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/19/2016 @ 4:21 pmtonight Trump has to drive so far he’ll only find static on the RADIO-O-O-O-O
happyfeet (831175) — 2/19/2016 @ 4:56 pmCruz tonight, in a forum with Sean Hannity in SC on Fox News: “It’s easy to say, ‘Make America Great Again.’ You can even put it on a baseball cap!”
But there’s more to it than that, and if you actually are looking to make anything great, why would you pick the guy who’s run his business empire through bankruptcy four times?
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/19/2016 @ 7:34 pmIt needs to be said. Trump is a habitual liar, Democrat and collector of conspiracy theories. Woe to the GOP if they nominate this guy. Cruz, too.
WarrenPeese (b535a8) — 2/19/2016 @ 8:24 pmTrump is good pickles. (cf. Hitler, Mussolini)
clearly Mr. Trump is not the worst possible choice.
happyfeet (831175) — 2/19/2016 @ 8:29 pmAh applebaum, abetter of the Polanski fugitive, she’s a good eastern European expert, and I’m ignoring hernbehavior in 2008.
narciso (732bc0) — 2/19/2016 @ 8:35 pmYes Rubio was sort of shanhai’d into some of the sillier notions floating around in my state’ in the oo’s
narciso (732bc0) — 2/19/2016 @ 8:40 pmHowever signing on to the campus crime think bill suggests he hasnt learned the lesson.
narciso (732bc0) — 2/19/2016 @ 8:46 pmArizona CJ,
Please be wary of wading into the muddy waters of moral relativism. That’s the domain of The Left.
In life, we don’t often get an option that includes “perfection.” Have you ever taken a job that you didn’t like, or that didn’t pay well enough? Sure, because that was the best available choice to you at that time. Same with a junky car, or a house or apartment that was less than your ideal. Or even back in the days when we used to go to Blockbuster Video to rent a DVD or VHS tape, didn’t you ever have a day where the movie you were intending to get was already checked out? And so you rented another movie…or you took the option of not renting a movie that night. But that’s not how it works in politics. If you sit it out, there’s still going to be a “winner” who will be authorized to make decisions which will impact you and your family. There’s a thousand examples of where you’ve chosen the lesser of two evils in your life. Why is a presidential election any different?
With presidential candidates, we can only choose from among who’s on the ballot. Marco Rubio’s not perfect, but he’d be a heck of a lot more conservative than Hillary. Every politician with a record has some votes or decisions that will make us cringe. Even Governor Reagan had some blemishes on his record in CA.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/19/2016 @ 9:00 pmWith the exception of Trump, none of the surviving GOP candidates are the lesser evil. Some are the greater good compared to one of the others. I would vote for Ted, Rubio, Jeb, Kasich or Carson versus Trump, Hillary or Bernie and not feel dirty doing it.
nk (dbc370) — 2/19/2016 @ 9:10 pmObama has transformed America and it’s given us Trump. We could see two New Yorkers running for President — Trump and Hillary. Is America ready for New York Values?
DRJ (15874d) — 2/19/2016 @ 9:52 pmperhaps, however, any watchman on the bridge is so derided,
http://twitchy.com/2016/02/19/darko-marco-miami-herald-headline-about-rubio-causes-double-takes/
narciso (732bc0) — 2/20/2016 @ 6:38 am16 … No one can win them over because to do so requires abandoning core conservative beliefs.
I wouldn’t have thought open borders was a core conservative belief but apparently I was wrong.
James B. Shearer (0f56fb) — 2/20/2016 @ 7:02 am30.Still waiting for any Trump supporter to explain how he’d pick good SCOTUS justices …
If he wanted to do this (which is a bit questionable) it’s not hard. Just ask the right people for advice.
James B. Shearer (0f56fb) — 2/20/2016 @ 7:08 amwell he has proferred diana sykes and bill pryor, now would he fight for them, is an open question,
narciso (732bc0) — 2/20/2016 @ 7:13 amI bet he also likes all the helmet laws.
(Note: I think helmets are a great idea, but rebel at the nanny state making me protect myself)
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/20/2016 @ 8:09 amJames B. Shearer (0f56fb) — 2/20/2016 @ 7:08 am
I do not intend to be flippant, but if Trump cannot be trusted to pick a good SCOTUS justice, how can he be trusted to pick a good counselor to advise him?
felipe (56556d) — 2/20/2016 @ 8:50 am66 I do not intend to be flippant, but if Trump cannot be trusted to pick a good SCOTUS justice, how can he be trusted to pick a good counselor to advise him?
There are two separate issues here. Can Trump be trusted to try to pick good judges? And given that Trump wants to pick good judges is he capable of doing so? Beldar has been arguing that Trump is too dumb (or lazy or something) to pick good judges even if he wanted to. But I don’t see picking good judges as that difficult.
Good of course is in the eye of the beholder. I suspect Beldar and I would disagree a bit on the ideal judge. For example unlike Beldar I didn’t like the Miers pick. But if I wanted to pick a judge that would make people like Beldar happy I would just ask them for recommendations. It doesn’t seem that complicated.
James B. Shearer (0f56fb) — 2/20/2016 @ 9:37 amConservatives liked it too when the Heritage Foundation proposed it.
JEA (f5a284) — 2/20/2016 @ 11:19 amok glad we cleared this up
happyfeet (831175) — 2/20/2016 @ 11:37 am