Patterico's Pontifications

2/25/2016

Today’s Anti-Trump Links: February 25, 2016

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:28 am



“I don’t think Ivanka would do that [pose for nude photographs] inside the magazine,” Trump says, speaking for his daughter. “Although she does have a very nice figure. I’ve said that if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps, I would be dating her.”

I don’t believe in abortion except in cases of rape, or Donald Trump.

Avi Woolf: Goodbye for Now; Eat at Arby’s

[T]he easy betrayal of all principles for a transparent con-man who flashes money, gold, and women draped in a flag like the crassest of rap singers demonstrated just how shallow support for anything above the level of bread and circuses is in 2016. Maybe it was always like this.

Spare me the specific complaints on policy — whether it comes to immigration, foreign policy, or political correctness. It’s emotional bullshit rationalization and we both know it. Trump was repeatedly exposed as a fraud and an inconsistent one at that on everything you hold dear, yet you still protect him as though he were your sister.

. . . .

The GOP in Congress will have no choice but to agree to Trump’s actions or launch a civil war that will gut the already gutted party. They will become just as corrupt as their master. Good people like Paul Ryan, Mike Lee, and even Mitch McConnell, who were slowly learning to become more attentive to voters’ interests, will be forced to revert to the crude stereotype of the “establishment” talk radio always told you they were. The GOP will be dead in the water, a mere appendage to the Democrats.

. . . .

Mass tariffs and protectionism will only harm you. Many businesses will simply not expand to hire, shut down, or invest in automation. The transition to a world where robots do more work, which could have taken place slowly without so many labor regulations and laws which make you too expensive to hire, will take place at warp speed. Instead of being able to gradually adapt and change to the new situation, you will be hit with a freight train of change. Your “protected” job will last a few years, if that, after which you will simply be unemployable. Trump, and the donor and elite classes you so despise, will suffer not at all.

This is a good transition into the next piece, which articulates something I have thought for a while, and have said in comments and tweets . . . but may not have posted about: namely, in many ways, Trump would actually be worse than Hillary or Bernie.

Me, I’m going to save the wailing, gnashing of teeth, and ripping out large tufts or hair until at least next Tuesday, and possibly until March 15. But if things continue this way, I agree with Tom Nichols: I’ll Take Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump.

Star-struck, low-information celebrity cultists will vote for Trump under any circumstances because they do not know any better and do not care. For them, Trump is whatever they want him to be, and they will never change their minds. The rest of us, however, have a much more difficult choice to make. Will we really oppose Trump to the point of accepting any alternative, including Hillary Clinton?

The answer, at least for me, is: Yes. If forced into a choice between Clinton and Trump, I will prefer Hillary Clinton.

. . . .

My hands almost could not type those words, because I think Hillary Clinton is one of the worst human beings in American politics. She has few principles that I can discern, other than her firm conviction that she deserves the Oval Office for enabling and then defending her sexually neurotic husband. She lies as easily as the rest of us breathe. She has compromised national security through sheer laziness at best, and corrupt intent at worst. If elected, she will enrich Wall Street and raid the public coffers while preaching hateful doctrines of identity politics to distract America’s poor and working classes.

But Trump will be worse. Morally unmoored, emotionally unstable, a crony capitalist of the worst kind, Trump will be every bit as liberal as Hillary—perhaps more so, given his statements over the years. He is by reflex and instinct a New York Democrat whose formal party affiliation is negotiable, as is everything about him. He has little commitment to anything but himself and his “deals,” none of which will work in favor of conservatives or their priorities.

I agree with Nichols’s contempt for most Trump voters and for Trump himself. I don’t agree with everything in his article. I think we would have a chance at good judges with Trump, and none with Hillary or Bernie. (We’d have great nominees with Cruz; of that I have no doubt.). I don’t consider it an imperative that Hillary win; if I did, I would consider voting for her, and I will never vote for her. But I will support any conservative third party alternative, even if it assures Hillary’s victory, and I will otherwise wash my hands of the whole thing.

My reason for preferring Hillary is that a GOP Congress will oppose Hillary’s leftist policies. It will enact Trump’s leftist policies. I’d rather have the former.

143 Responses to “Today’s Anti-Trump Links: February 25, 2016”

  1. But I will support any conservative third party alternative, even if it assures Hillary’s victory, and I will otherwise wash my hands of the whole thing.

    Yo lo mismo. Pour le encourage les autres.
    (Me too. To encourage the other others.)

    nk (dbc370)

  2. Sigh. other

    nk (dbc370)

  3. It will enact Trump’s leftist policies

    Why do you think it will enact them? I can see Trump assembling a coalition of Democrats and Republicans to get them passed; but not the Congressional GOP by itself.

    A Trump candidacy – win or lose – will shatter the GOP. And if, somehow, he gets elected (my gawd, I am actually thinking of President Donald Trump?) he won’t be able to put it back together. But he will be able to assemble that part that supports him along with liberal Democrats who will opportunistically use Trump for their purposes. And this further splits whatever is left of the party (as if that’s needed).

    Unless a miracle happens, the modern GOP is gone, kaput, finished.

    The Trump phenomenon is just astonishing to me. I understand his supporter’s complaints and frustrations; but I simply do not understand how they think this man will be the agent for addressing them. What can’t they see that we can?

    SteveMG (96383c)

  4. I’ve been saying this ever since you first raised the question months ago. If it comes to Trump v Clinton I’d rather Clinton won. Not so much as to actually vote for her, but I will not lift a finger to prevent her from winning. If the Libertarians nominate someone sane I’ll vote for that person, and if not I’ll write in Barry Goldwater’s ghost. But I’m still afraid the D nominee might be Michelle 0bama, and I really don’t know what I’d do in a race between her and Trump.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  5. There are two republican candidates I support. First, Cruz, second Trump. But, I would vote for any republican in the general election. The next president will appoint at least two supreme court justices and very probably more than that.

    We don’t need can’t afford a supreme court with 6 or more kagans and sotomayors.

    Jim (b1ce76)

  6. This post exemplifies the Stupid Party’s raison d’etre: consistently look for a way to lose and pretend it’s a matter of principle. Climb on your high horse, look down your nose at the misguided peasants who actually think their vote counts, and pat yourself on the back for being so sophisticated and civic minded. Tell yourself that you’re one of the good people, America’s best.

    ropelight (1ec750)

  7. Milhouse,

    I’m just curious, how do you foresee Michelle Obama getting into the race?

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  8. I stand by my original position that I would rather see Old Whazzizname win than Hillary!, for the simple reason that I think we would be wise enough four years from now to get rid of Old Whazzizname, after the Great Conservative Hissy-fit had played itself out. That, and the fact that Hillary! would arguably have an even more lawless and sleazy administration than the other guy.

    But I too will be voting third-party if the choice comes down to those two.

    JVW (9e3c77)

  9. The Founding principles work, ropelight. I hope Trump studied them in military school and that he remembers and believes in them. I fear that decades of working and living in New York have probably make him forget they exist.

    DRJ (15874d)

  10. “Climb on your high horse, look down your nose at the misguided peasants who actually think their vote counts, and pat yourself on the back for being so sophisticated and civic minded.”

    – ropelight

    People that support fascists should be looked down on.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  11. Rush is asking pertinent questions: If Trump would lose easily to Hillary why are so many elites, both left and right, looking for ways to knock him down?

    Today’s WaPo editorial calls on the GOPe to block Trump from the nomination. But, if he’s a sure looser to Hillary wouldn’t the WaPo’s leftists want to keep Trump in the race so Hillary win would be a sure thing?

    It doesn’t make sense. The WaPo is lying about Trump’s appeal. He’d beat Hillary like a 2 dollar rent horse. And the left is scared to death of The Donald.

    ropelight (1ec750)

  12. People that support fascists should be looked down on.

    There you have it, a perfect example of the entitled attitude. Refuse to knuckle under to the wit and wisdom of Lord Liviticus and be labeled a fascist as justification for overt contempt. It’s textbook Alensky: victimize opponents (as fascists) and claim they deserve scorn and disdain.

    ropelight (1ec750)

  13. I feel entitled not to live under fascism. Just how my momma raised me, I guess.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  14. Ropelight, if you think Trump doesn’t look down at you, you need to rethink your position. And you talk about the Party looking for ways to lose, but if Trump is what winning looks like, we don’t want it. We want someone who has SOME sort of principles, and is SOME sort of conservative at the very least. Trump has and is neither.

    There is no way Trump beats Hillary. NO way.

    Patrick Henry, the 2nd (ddead1)

  15. False flag, ropelight. The WaPo and the DNC (but I repeat myself) cannot be seen to endorse Trump, not only for the sake of their own dumdums, but also for the sake of Trump supporters who might start to realize that he is a stalking horse for Hillary.

    nk (dbc370)

  16. PH, considering how overwhelmingly Trump is winning, I’d say your concept of “we” is delusional. Trump can easily beat Hillary, she’s got more baggage than a 747.

    ropelight (1ec750)

  17. Trump is getting people interested in voting again. Saw on one of the national news program about a guy in his mid ’60s; said he last voted 30 years ago, but Trump got him excited about voting for somebody new to the scene. You can see it with how many more voters are in the primaries compared to the last two elections.

    Personally I think Trump would rise to the occasion if he wins; he’s no dope. And he scares the elites, whom need scaring. If he’s such a pushover, the lefty media should be doing absolutely everything to sing his praises. Instead it’s trash him 100% of the time.

    I can also see him getting a big chunk of the black working class voters; not the welfare clowns, those are core Hillary voters. But Trump making noise about moving the illegals back to where they came from, that will get working class interested. Eliminating a labor glut will help all working class peeps.

    All this talk of rounding up the illegals and sending them back; you don’t have to do that. Make every legal citizen get a counterfeit proof ID that you need for a job or govt benefits. Then have big fines/jail time for the scum that hires the illegals. And no benefits for you! If they’re don’t have the ID. They’ll self deport when they can’t make a living here. The only ones you’d need to collect would be the criminal class, which should be done anyway.

    dee (9f4d1f)

  18. Dee – because nothing says “freedom” like not being able to work without the proper papers, and because government would *never* use such a system to deny working rights to people it didn’t like … or accidentally prevent someone from working who had the legal right to, through negligence or malfeasance.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  19. Ropelight,

    > Refuse to knuckle under to the wit and wisdom of Lord Liviticus and be labeled a fascist as justification for overt contempt.

    Wow. Leviticus has been commenting here for almost as long as I have been, and he’s *never* really displayed an attitude which would justify that response.

    I think there are a *lot* of similarities between Trump and Mussolini, and I think there are a lot of similarities between the rhetorical basis for support of Trump and the rhetorical basis for support of Mussolini.

    Trump scares me like no candidate in modern times has scared me not because I’m liberal and he’s conservative – I don’t think he *is* conservative in any meaningful sense – but because I don’t believe he actually has any respect for the procedural norms of the Republic, and I expect a Trump presidency to be one in which there is *deliberate* effort to tear down or vitiate those norms, supported by an activist base who has been rallied in opposition to a mythical external enemy.

    I’m generally reluctant to use the word ‘fascist’ because I think it’s been abused a lot by the left; *and* I think Trump is the closest thing to it I’ve ever seen.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  20. Dee – because nothing says “freedom” like not being able to work without the proper papers, and because government would *never* use such a system to deny working rights to people it didn’t like … or accidentally prevent someone from working who had the legal right to, through negligence or malfeasance.

    My God, we’ve turned aphrael into a libertarian!

    Seriously though, aphrael, wouldn’t you agree that we need a much more effective method of determining who is in this country legally (and thus should be allowed to pursue employment opportunities) and who is here illegally (and thus should be denied employment opportunities)? Immigrant advocates wants to go Godwin and pretend that asking for work permits is one step away from stopping people on the street and asking to see their “papers,” but I can’t recall a job I have had where I didn’t have to provide either a driver’s license or a passport as proof I was eligible to work in this country.

    JVW (9e3c77)

  21. apharel, that’s a cheap shot you took at dee. Anericans are out of work and illegal aliens are taking jobs Americans need. It’s a bit much to extol the so-called rights of illegals and then imply it’s racist for government to preclude illegals from the work force.

    I’ve been commenting here longer than either you or Liviticus and I’ve seen him display the same and similar attitudes time and again. You claim to sees a *lot* of similarities between Trump and Moussolini – Poppycock. Why not go all out and call Trump a NAZI? Too Jewish?

    You’re scared, you think Trump is the closest thing to (a fascist) you’ve ever seen.

    Open your eyes – There’s one in the White House right now.

    ropelight (1ec750)

  22. PH, considering how overwhelmingly Trump is winning, I’d say your concept of “we” is delusional. Trump can easily beat Hillary, she’s got more baggage than a 747.

    I wouldn’t call wining with 30% of the voters “overwhelmingly”. So I’d say YOUR concept of “we” is delusional.

    Hillary sure has baggage, but so does Trump. The media will LINE UP to tear into him. And Trump has an underwater favorability rating. Not to mention the legions of voters on the right who won’t vote for Trump or Hillary.

    Patrick Henry, the 2nd (ddead1)

  23. “I’m generally reluctant to use the word ‘fascist’ because I think it’s been abused a lot by the left; *and* I think Trump is the closest thing to it I’ve ever seen.”

    – aphrael

    So am I (re: “fascist”), and I agree (re: Trump).

    Leviticus (efada1)

  24. And Trump has an underwater favorability rating. Not to mention the legions of voters on the right who won’t vote for Trump or Hillary.

    Keep grabbing at those straws, PH, but take note of Trump’s near universal appeal – in the last 2 contests he’s won nearly every demographic, and his momentum is growing. The media has been lined up against him from day one and he’s not only still standing, he dominating.

    Are you one of the so-called conservatives who won’t vote for the GOP nominee if it’s Trump?

    ropelight (1ec750)

  25. ropelight,

    Trump’s near universal appeal
    Wut?
    The only demographic which overwhelmingly supports Trump is “The X-Files” constituency. And I hear some of those people are turning on him due to suspicions and paranoia. Oh, the irony of it all.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  26. Crud can’t even come in second everyone but you now can see he is another nixon cunning but self destructive. Back to canada for turd crud!

    trump for president (e316f5)

  27. Except that the Senate won’t oppose her policies, and certainly not her judges. If Trump is the nominee, I will makie the best of a bad deal. There will be some opportunities.

    For example, should Trump win, a package of carefully prepared limitations on executive power might easily pass Congress and be passed by Obama.

    * Such as a dual-house veto on regulations by a long list of agencies, with an explicit linking of this veto power to the agency’s regulatory power.

    * Such as giving any member of Congress standing when the President takes actions contrary to statute.

    * Such as giving either House explicit authority to jail any administration official for 15 days for failing to comply with a valid subpoena for records.

    * Such as renewing the old special prosecutor act. (OK, maybe Obama won’t sign that one)

    And no doubt others.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  28. *signed by Obama

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  29. What did Trump know ahead of time about 9/11? After all, he wasn’t at the World Trade Center. Who tipped him off?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  30. because government would *never* use such a system to deny working rights to people it didn’t like

    Immediately after I posted something quite critical of the TSA on my old blog, I found myself on a watch list. Took me several years to get off of it. Probably just coincidence — I can’t imagine trusted government agents being so petty.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  31. Trump might be a fascist.

    Hillary IS a corrupt fascist. Different favored groups, but a fascist just the same. And she’d take away your guns.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  32. JVW, at 20:

    > My God, we’ve turned aphrael into a libertarian!

    *laugh*

    I’ve always had some strong libertarian leanings; they just compete with other things for mindshare. My libertarian leanings tend to be more strongly provoked when I think that a cultural majority is trying to force a cultural minority to conform – I *loathe* San Francisco’s sit/lie law, for example – but that doesn’t mean they’re quiescent otherwise. :)

    > Immigrant advocates wants to go Godwin and pretend that asking for work permits is one step away from stopping people on the street and asking to see their “papers

    I think there’s a real danger of that long-term. I mean, look at the debate about voter ID: one of the most common arguments is “well, you need ID for these other things, so there’s no burden if you have to show it here, too” … which could apply to just about any other scenario where we become afraid of not-us. Non-citizens are destroying the public discourse! You should have to show your ID to a scanner before you can get on the internet – and after all, there’s no burden because you have the ID anyway, right?

    I don’t see an argument which defeats that other than “that’s absurd and oppressive” … but, look: I think it’s absurd and oppressive that I have to have ID in order to sell my labor, too … so on what basis do I conclude that the slippery slope will stop at this absurd-and-oppressive place and not that other absurd-and-oppressive place? All I have to go on is faith that my fellow citizens won’t let it get that far … and that faith is being tried, sorely.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  33. Ropelight, at 21:

    (a) i’m usually not grumpy about this, but really? can you please spell my name correctly, especially when you’re accusing me of a cheap shot? :)

    (b) I’m not extolling the rights of illegals, and I’m not intending to imply that the government is racist. I’m not talking about illegals at all.

    I’m talking about the burden that the ID law puts on citizens and legal immigrants, and about the possibility that a software or documentation glitch will prevent people who have the right to work from doing so, and about the possibility that a nameless bureaucrat will abuse power to prevent someone from being able to work even though they’re entitled to.

    The latter point is one that I would expect to resonate with conservatives.

    The former point is one that I would expect to resonate with anyone who has experience designing complex systems: errors occur. mistakes happen. complex systems built by flawed humans will have points of failure – and real people’s lives will be ruined by those points of failure.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  34. This all seems remarkably childish and imprudent. Suppose Cruz pulls off an amazing debate and surges to victory next Tuesday. What is the response to the millions of trump supporters who point to idiocy like this and declare they won’t support Cruz in the general? You do realize that there is no winning the general without the people voting for Trump right? In the end reasoned argument may not prevail but at least there is the possibility of success. Throwing childish tantrums only guarantees failure.

    Teb (74c644)

  35. > Why not go all out and call Trump a NAZI? Too Jewish?

    Because I’m capable of distinguishing between different kinds of fascism and because I have historically been averse to hyperbole.

    Trump’s campaign seems to me to be very likely to bring about the same kind of populist fusion of industry, government, and media which characterized Mussolini’s government. Trump himself strikes me as having zero regard for procedural norms, and quite willing to say blatantly untrue things (ok, all politicians do this, but Trump takes it to 100) while hiding what he’s really up to. Furthermore, he’s *publically lamenting* the fact that we don’t beat protesters up any more; I can easily see that leading to violence which Trump will somehow blame on the victims (if it happens).

    His program doesn’t have the elements which distinguished Nazism from Fascism, and so it’s not appropriate to call him a Nazi. But Fascist? or at least, proto-Fascist? I think that’s fair.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  36. Kevin M – I’m willing to believe Hillary is corrupt. But what’s the argument that she’s a fascist? As far as I can tell she represents the political establishment, not a revolutionary movement intended to destroy the establishment and thereby restore the republic to the days of glory which the establishment has destroyed.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  37. The Cruz fan meltdown is hitting the critical mass stage and the circular firing squad is fully engaged now. They made Trump promise to not run third party which he eventually did. Implicit in that was that Trump would support the eventual nominee. The purists are showing their true colors as pure BS. I think that is part of the reason why the evangelicals are abandoning Ted – they suspect it is all show and underhanded tactics and figure “why not Trump – at least he will entertain us.”
    The perfect storm of disaffected Democrats and Republicans has produced this environment. The pure partisans on both sides should own it.

    spokanebob (6797b5)

  38. Kevin M – and what happens when those regulations get tied up in the courts, Trump loses, and then he overtly and publically refuses to give effect to the court’s judgment?

    Trump is someone I could see doing that. Which is part of why he scares me.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  39. aphrael–

    Well. I’d say “continue the destruction” that Obama wrought. If Mussolini had had a successor, he’d still be a fascist.

    The fusion of business, labor and government is nothing new and Obama has raised it to an art form. Hillary has, quite literally, taken it to the bank.

    You don’t have to have “heterosexual white men” as a preferred class to be a fascist, nor do your glory days have to be real ones — they usually are imagined anyway. In her case “NOT heterosexual white men” would be preferred.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  40. aphrael, there’s absolutely no “burden” to providing voter ID.
    If there were truly an imposition upon someone’s civil rights, then the Obama Justice Department would be suing Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Marriott Hotels, Chase Bank, and your local library for demanding ID when you do a transaction with them.

    Oh yeah, and the doorman at Joe’s Pub always asks to see ID on Saturday Night, too.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  41. aphrael, It’s the lesser evil to have an ID to get a job or govt benefits. With the ID, it’s the employer that’s doing the checking; not jack booted govt agents. Which is how we do it today, without the ID. Or at least supposed to be checking on illegals; but with sanctuary cities, or sanctuary lefty administrations, it’s not happening. If you can’t see what a hell hole this country will become when we’re overrun by people sneaking in….

    dee (9f4d1f)

  42. “Releasing The Woman In Your Daughter”

    As a grown woman, and arguably one of the most beautiful and adored women of her time, Marilyn Monroe lamented that as a little girl no one told her she was pretty.

    Little girls, she said, need to be told they are pretty. Many in the self-aware, independent 90’s might scoff at such a naive desire for validation, but evidence suggests that little girls do indeed benefit from such praise.

    The task of validating a little girl’s femininity is an important role of the most significant man in her life: daddy.

    “Daughters and Their Dads: The Vital Relationship”

    As already stated, the research on this is voluminous, so only a few highlights can here be offered. Father presence, input and affirmation all correlate with better outcomes for daughters. Many studies for example have shown a close connection between “the relationship between fatherly affirmation and a woman’s self-esteem, fear of intimacy, comfort with womanhood and comfort with sexuality” as one study puts it.

    http://billmuehlenberg.com/2014/08/27/daughters-and-their-dads-the-vital-relationship/

    http://fatherandchild.org.nz/magazine/issue-42/releasing-the-woman-in-your-daughter/

    sound awake (04e750)

  43. Kevin M – and what happens when those regulations get tied up in the courts, Trump loses, and then he overtly and publically refuses to give effect to the court’s judgment?

    Then he is a dictator, of course, for all to see. You next question is: “What happens if he’s impeached, convicted and refuses to go quietly?”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  44. Cruz Supporter – thank you for proving my point.

    We’ve accepted as normal a situation in which, in order to put money in a bank, or borrow a book from a library, or rent an apartment, or get a job, or buy alcohol, you have to be able to present a piece of paper from the government establishing that it’s OK for you to do so. Which means that we’ve accepted as normal that our “freedom” to do that is in fact a revocable license – a privilege, not a right.

    That’s great as long as the grounds for revocation are things we’re amenable to. But what guarantee do we have that they’ll stay that way?

    And if those things are revocable privileges, on what grounds do we claim to be free men?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  45. Kevin M – and I think that’s my point: Trump is the first politician in my lifetime that has struck me as actually entailing a risk of dictatorship.

    I’m registered to vote in California, and I’m registered decline to state. It used to be that this would allow me to vote in the Republican Presidential Primary, and if it were still the case, I’d do so this year, so that I could vote for “not-Trump”.

    I just now discovered that it’s not the case this year, so I haven’t thought about whether or not this justifies reregistering as a Republican. But on the surface it seems like it’s a good idea.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  46. Sorry about the misspelling aphrael, dyslexia strikes again. No matter how well any complex system is designed, it’s always operated by fallible human beings. Errors and oversights do invariably occur, but that’s never stopped us before. We continue to design idiot proof systems and even though we fall sort of our goals we need those systems so we live with the shortcomings and try to ameliorate the negative impacts on individuals. It has always been so, and it’s not likely to change any time soon.

    ropelight (1ec750)

  47. It’s just hilarious how the state will totally back up a corner liquor store for refusing purchase of alcohol to someone without ID, but the state will then turn around and say that it’s “racist” for someone at a state-sponsored election precinct to require ID of someone before they vote.

    In fact, the state intentionally facilitates undercover busts of liquor stores. They send undercover people under the age of 21 without ID to attempt to purchase alcohol. And if a store fails to adhere to the ID/age 21 law, they get fined thousands of dollars, and with repeat violations, may even have their liquor license repealed.

    The same people who favor that tactic at liquor stores, scream “bloody murder” whenever James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas team exposes fraud at voting precincts.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  48. In my experience, the people who say it’s racist for someone at a state-sponsored election precinct to require ID would also say it’s racist for the liquor store to require ID. They’d just care less because (a) they think it’s not the state doing it, (b) they don’t think buying alcohol is as important as voting, and either (c) they have enough latent racism themselves to somewhat think it’s ok for racism to prevent people from drinking or (d) they have enough anti-alcohol sentiment to allow their anti-alcohol sentiment to trump their anti-racism.

    Speaking only for myself: my objection to voter ID laws isn’t based on perceived racism, AND I don’t like the requirement that you have ID to buy alcohol, either. (That said, I don’t think drinking is as important as voting, so it doesn’t irk me *as much*).

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  49. ropelight, at 46: thank you! :)

    i agree that we have to live with shortcomings and try to ameliorate the negative impacts; that’s life. but i also think we have a responsibility, before adopting a system, to try to understand the nature of the likely shortcomings and to reject systems whose shortcomings will be difficult to ameliorate.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  50. Yes, aphrael. That’s why I should be in charge of making decisions – Tony Arbiter.

    ropelight (1ec750)

  51. #44 aphrael,

    Are you kidding me?
    (LOL)
    The government isn’t “endorsing” your transaction with Enterprise, Marriott, Chase, or your local library.
    What are you talking about?
    Rather, if anything, the government’s just providing the photo ID that you are who you say you are. If you’ve got a maxed out or expired credit card, that’s YOUR problem. But the government’s not vouching you for your credit line—they’re just vouching for your identity. A 20 year old person can walk into a liquor store and try to buy liquor with their ID, but the fact they have ID does not entitle them to buy the liquor. Right?! Do you get that? (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  52. Of course the government isn’t endorsing the transactions in question.

    But the transactions in question aren’t legal without the government endorsing that I have the minimum requirements to be able to engage in the transaction.

    This is certainly true for the liquor store and the library, and for the employer. It’s clearly true for the car rental. It’s less clear for the hotel, to be fair.

    It’s a necessary-but-not-sufficient component. And that’s a real imposition on personal liberty – because if the government revokes its endorsement, then the “necessary” part fails.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  53. I don’t need ID, I know who I am. Goldwater would have slapped all the Real ID proponents. ID requirements are not the abandonment of a conservative principle; they’re the 180 degree reverse of it.

    Except for Trump supporters:
    Policeman: Got any ID?
    Trump supporter: ‘Bout what?

    nk (dbc370)

  54. aphrael,

    So, basically, you’re saying that the government shouldn’t be allowed to enforce a “21” age upon alcohol, and that Marriott Hotels shouldn’t be allowed to confirm that when Joe Jones uses Patrick Frey’s lost credit card to stay in the $800 a night penthouse suite in Palm Beach, he shouldn’t be required to prove that he’s actually Patrick Frey.

    That’s okay—there’s people who believe Elvis Presley pumps gas in Podunk, Oklahoma.

    I guess that means you also don’t believe the state should be allowed to enforce an age “16” driving license. I suppose there are some people who believe the world would be a better place if 8 year olds were driving themselves to Maple Elementary School. But I’m just not one of them.
    There’s a utopian universe that Leftists, Libertarians, and some people on the far, far, right believe in. Some folks refer to it as Alice’s Wonderland.

    I, on the other hand, ascribe to James Madison’s quote that if men were angels, we wouldn’t actually need government.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  55. I’m willing to accept the limitations on driving, for safety reasons.

    I don’t think the government should be enforcing an age limit on alcohol. If Marriott wants to verify that someone is who they claim to be, that’s on Marriott; I don’t think the government should *force* Marriott to do so.

    I believe this *because* I agree with the quote you posted. If men were angels, we wouldn’t need government – and at the same time, government is made up of men, and we should therefore be *cautious* when granting the government the power to interfere with our day to day lives.

    For me, a requirement that I have government documentation before I can sell my labor has given it too much power, and I do not trust that the men in government will never abuse that power. The same applies to a requirement that I have government documentation before I can purchase products from the market.

    Your view seems to be it’s an Alice-in-wonderland viewpoint, to think we can prosper without the government having such power. I think that’s remarkably ahistorical; we prospered before the government had that power, after all.

    There was a price for that prosperity, and there were real problems, and the power was granted in an effort to solve those problems; but that doesn’t mean that the grant of power was *necessary* to solve the problems, and it doesn’t mean there weren’t (or aren’t) better solutions.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  56. aphrael,

    Do you also not believe in ANY background checks for purchase of guns? Because ‘any’ background check for a gun requires an ID.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  57. Cruz Supporter – that’s not what he said. At all. Putting words in other people’s mouths is obnoxious, and you do it a lot.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  58. Cruz Supporter – that’s a good question, and I have to admit I haven’t thought it through sufficiently.

    On the one hand: guns strike me as being fundamentally *different* in that they pose an active threat to other people in a way that most goods and services do not, particularly in densely populated areas. So that’s a strike in favor of background checks as a policy matter. To be clear: they’re much more like cars, and I’m ok with regulating car ownership.

    On the other hand: guns are also fundamentally different in that they are explicitly constitutionally protected, which means the framers of the constitution took the policy decision away from the voters and the legislators.

    So as a policy matter I think I’d say I’m ok with it, but as a legal matter I think it’s not constitutional and therefore not legal.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  59. aphrael, ohhhhh….so you’re cool with government ID when it comes to “safety” reasons.
    Wow! So “safety” reasons applies to driving an automobile, but not purchase of alcohol, or voter ID, or a hotel room using someone else’s stolen credit card? Is that how easily it works?

    God, that’s brilliant.

    Soooo…who exactly gets to determine these alleged “safety” reasons? (LOL)

    Is there some committee who gets to make these decisions about “safety” in regards to driving an automobile VS using someone’s stolen credit card VS purchasing alcohol?

    I have a feeling this all points back to…representative democracy. WUT?!!! HUH? (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  60. One of the things that’s kind of implicit in the difference I am assuming exists between you and me on guns is a different view in the importance of guns. For me, the right to sell my labor, or the right to purchase things from the market, is *more important* than the right to own a gun – so as a policy matter i’m more likely to favor restrictions on gun ownership, and i’m less likely to view them as being an imposition or deprivation of liberty.

    I’m just unusual among people with this viewpoint in that I also acknowledge that the constitution takes that decision out of my hands.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  61. aphrael, ohhhhhhh, so purchasing guns is “different” than purchasing a six-pack of Bud Lite or renting the $800 penthouse suite at the Marriott, or even for voting for President!

    Ohhhhh. Lord.

    I rest my case. You’re right…you haven’t thought it out.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  62. Sure! I’m not claiming, for example, that REAL-ID is *unconstitutional* or *outside the power of the legislature*. I’m saying it’s a *deprivation of liberty* which should be opposed as such; not that it’s outside the power of the state to enact such a deprivation.

    I very much doubt that you approve of, or agree with, everything which has been done by representative democracy; why should you expect me to?

    —-

    That said, I think there’s a really clear line between automobiles and guns on the one hand, and alcohol or hotel rooms on the other: automobiles and guns represent a present risk to human life *at all times that they are in use*. Hotel rooms and beer, not so much.

    We can disagree over the degree of that risk. But I can trivially easily accidentally kill you with either a car or a gun – and some sort of regulation designed to reduce the likelihood that I do that strikes me as being an essential element of public safety.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  63. Your sarcasm aside, I’ll stand by my claim that they’re different.

    My possession of a gun poses a physical threat to the people around me. My renting a penthouse suite poses no physical threat to anyone. My possession of a six-pack of Bud Lite falls somewhere in between.

    What I haven’t thought out is the specific mechanics of gun regulation, and how to reconcile public safety with personal freedom; guns aren’t an important enough issue to me to have thought about that extensively.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  64. aphrael,

    Friend, you’re inducing vertigo.
    So, we’ve concluded that you believe the government has the right to impose “ID” purposes and restrictions upon the things that you say want it to, but not in regards to the things that you don’t want it to.

    Lemme guess…you voted for Obama?

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  65. I just now discovered that it’s not the case this year, so I haven’t thought about whether or not this justifies reregistering as a Republican. But on the surface it seems like it’s a good idea.

    The ONLY thing that party registration does in CA now (other than marking you for direct mailing) is let you vote in the party’s presidential primary. Everything else is jungle ballots. I suspect that Trump might lose the GOP primary here, since there is no same-day registration and party regulars might be upset. They didn’t go for the Trump-lite gubernatorial candidate.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  66. #63 aphrael,

    That’s complete insanity.
    You believe that a person should be allowed to charge an $800 penthouse suite to their credit card without having to produce ID to show that their credit card and ID match up?
    This is total insanity.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  67. that Marriott Hotels shouldn’t be allowed to confirm that when Joe Jones uses Patrick Frey’s lost credit card to stay in the $800 a night penthouse suite in Palm Beach, he shouldn’t be required to prove that he’s actually Patrick Frey.

    No, but they shouldn’t be required to by law. Nor should they be requited to check IDs of cash customers. Or record them. As for credit cards, they probably will check, as the credit card companies might want them to.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  68. Cruz Supporter: I don’t understand how you get “we’ve concluded that you believe the government has the right to impose “ID” purposes and restrictions upon the things that you say want it to, but not in regards to the things that you don’t want it to” when I’ve said: ” I’m not claiming, for example, that REAL-ID is *unconstitutional* or *outside the power of the legislature*. I’m saying it’s a *deprivation of liberty* which should be opposed as such; not that it’s outside the power of the state to enact such a deprivation.”

    —————————–
    My position is:

    The government has the authority, and therefore the right, to do such things.

    The government is wrong to do so.

    —————————–

    Please desist from mischaracterizing my opinion.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  69. Cruz Supporter – I’ve never said that I “believe that a person should be allowed to charge an $800 penthouse suite to their credit card without having to produce ID to show that their credit card and ID match up”.

    I’ve said that whether the hotel wants the person to show ID should be up to the hotel, not up to the government, and I’ve said that the question isn’t a matter of public safety.

    I think the hotel would be insane to allow it (unless the person had an established relationship with them). But the hotel should not be prevented by law from doing so.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  70. Kevin M – yeah, I voted for the jungle primary, before I moved to NY. I think overall it’s had a good effect.

    I was expecting DTS voters to be able to request presidential primary ballots from either major party, but this is apparently not the case.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  71. > The ONLY thing that party registration does in CA now (other than marking you for direct mailing) is let you vote in the party’s presidential primary.

    Well, I suspect that (were I to reregister) it would also be good for getting nasty looks from the workers in my polling place, as well.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  72. Id’s to vote are a double edged sword. What happens when mrs. clinton says you have to prove your not a racist to vote in federal elections and arrest conservate state administration for trying to allow republicans to vote?

    trump for president (e316f5)

  73. Did we ever clear up whether or not Cruz Supporter was Elephant Stone, by the way?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  74. Careful A.R., one could be called a bigot thinking such things.

    Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27)

  75. If we knew we were successful in keeping felons and terrorists out of our country then the need for ID would be less.
    Same with voting, make people dip their finger in purple dye ( in some jurisdictions, one finger for each vote…)
    But the whole absentee thing sort of messes that up.

    MD not exactly in Philly (deca84)

  76. There should be no such thing as absentee voting except for the military. Having a purple finger does not mean one was entitled to dip it to begin with. Valid ID is practical and necessary for many things voting being one of the most important.

    Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27)

  77. I was listening to The Dana Show as I was driving through Pennsylvania today. According to polling, a full 28 percent of the Republican Base say they will NEVER, EVER vote for Donald Trump.

    Gee. Where have we heard that before? Oh, I know! I’ve said it. My daughter has said it. My son-in-law has said it. Patterico has said it. Other people on this site has said it.

    If a full 28 percent of the Republican Base flat-out refuses to vote for Donald Trump, he CANNOT win.

    And I, too, am contemptuous of Trump Idolators. Even moreso than Obama Idolators, because we’re supposed to be the reasoned, principled ones. And Trump Idolators are neither reasoned nor principled.

    John Hitchcock (0997d2)

  78. Rev. Hoagie – there are people who are legitimately travelling on election day (for work, say) or who are unable to get to their polling place (doctors engaged in emergency surgery); I would not disenfranchise them.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  79. Sick and weird.

    Victoria (45bcb3)

  80. 79.Rev. Hoagie – there are people who are legitimately travelling on election day (for work, say) or who are unable to get to their polling place (doctors engaged in emergency surgery); I would not disenfranchise them.

    aphrael, election day doesn’t sneak up on you, there’s plenty of warning. Be home to vote or you disenfranchise yourself.

    Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27)

  81. If a full 28 percent of the Republican Base flat-out refuses to vote for Donald Trump, he CANNOT win.

    How many democrats will refuse to vote if their candidate doesn’t get the nomination? ZERO. That’s why they win and we lose.

    Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27)

  82. Hoagie – I may not be *able* to be home to vote.

    I knew a guy who was required by work to work remotely for six months continuously. Should he have quit his job to vote?

    Similarly, I’ve worked *as a polling place officer* in precincts other than where I lived, because that’s how the county ran things. Should I have been disenfranchised because I was choosing to spend my day *helping run the election*?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  83. Cruz is good on immigration too, A.R.. And he’s sane.

    Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27)

  84. Hoagie,
    I am afraid you often take my first approximations from the hip as fully developed policies.
    First, I am all for ID to prove one is allowed to vote.
    Voting is more important than cashing a check for $10.00, and one needs ID for that

    Sure a purple finger doesn’t mean you should have voted in the first place, but it will at least keep someone from voting more than once.

    Absentee ballots are helpful, my father in his wheelchair and my mother with her cane couldn’t get to vote without help from a third person, and it would still be a hardship.
    Relative, true.

    MD not exactly in Philly (deca84)

  85. MD who isn’t in Philly – on occasion, when working as a polling place official, I’ve been called upon to help someone vote.

    There are basically two rules that bind me, there:

    [a] I am not to help them *decide*, I am just to help them with *mechanics*.

    [b] I can’t help knowing what they decided, but I am bound to secrecy.

    Honestly (b) is quite easy as I can’t remember it for more than a few minutes anyhow. :)

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  86. But yeah,
    Probably easier for more fraudulent votes cast by absentee than voters disenfranchised by not having it.

    MD not exactly in Philly (deca84)

  87. “Careful A.R., one could be called a bigot thinking such things.”

    – Hoagie

    One could also be called a bigot for endorsing everything else that that guy is tweeting – if one were paying any attention to such things. Go check out the rest of his Twitter feed.

    A couple of nice examples include “Wake up, white people. We’re losing our countries, our cultures, and our lineages” and quoting “Dr. David Duke” as “standing up for the future of European Americans.”

    Leviticus (efada1)

  88. That is good of you,
    But just getting there is a struggle for some.

    MD not exactly in Philly (deca84)

  89. So, yeah. One could be called a bigot for thinking such things.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  90. MD – yeah. there’s also a system in CA for ‘curbside voting’ where you can ask a poll worker to bring the ballot to you in your car and watch you while you fill it out.

    I think it’s fallen into disuse, now, because of absentee voting.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  91. Aphreal, you and the guy you knew disenfranchised yourselves. If voting is more important, stay home and vote. If not go do what you believe to be more important. I realize as a liberal you don’t understand the concept of trade-offs or exclusions and think yourself entitled to have everything and ride home on a unicorn but absentee voting is wrought with fraud and I know because I saw it personally. So go do your thing or stay and vote but please don’t compromise the integrity of the ballot box because you can’t decide which you’d rather do. You’re an adult. Make a decision. If you can’t do that perhaps you shouldn’t vote at all.

    Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27)

  92. Hoagie: of course I understand the concept of trade-offs. But I thank you for your presumption; the presumption says more about you than it does about me. :)

    I disapprove of widespread absentee voting. I think the states which have adopted universal vote by mail are insane. I would vote against doing that in California, and I would vote in favor of strictly restricting its use.

    AND AT THE SAME TIME, I recognize that there are valid reasons to not be home on election day, and I think we should support those. I *want* volunteers working in the polling place on election day – and so I want them to be able to vote, because if they have to give up their vote to do it, a lot fewer will. I *want* surgeons working on election day, and I don’t want to reduce the likelihood of that being possible by ensuring that any surgeon working on election day has to give up his right to vote. I want the guys fighting massive wildfires to not be deterred from doing so by the thought that if they do, they won’t get to vote. Etc.

    As a policy matter, I think limited absentee voting, confined to specific kinds of exceptions, is worth the risk. So do you – you just want the exception list to be confined to *only the military*; I think it should be broader than that.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  93. Absentee ballots are helpful, my father in his wheelchair and my mother with her cane couldn’t get to vote without help from a third person, and it would still be a hardship.
    Relative, true.

    Sorry to hear about your parents. But if they can’t vote, they can’t vote. There are a million reasons why someone can’t vote. Better luck next time. Did you ever not vote on election day? I have. No good reason, just didn’t vote. I’m sorry that on any given election day some people who want to vote can’t get there to vote. Maybe if absentee ballots weren’t so easy to forge an so easy to “stuff” I’d change my mind. But they’re not.

    Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27)

  94. Dear USA,

    There will be a 4-day delay in all cross-country trucking freight. As all your shelves empty and all your gas tanks run dry, just remember, it’s more important for the trucker to vote than it is for you to eat or to be able to get to work.

    Signed,
    Hoagie

    John Hitchcock (0997d2)

  95. I think the states which have adopted universal vote by mail are insane. I would vote against doing that in California, and I would vote in favor of strictly restricting its use.

    In person or absentee? :) Perhaps I’m being too flip about it. I see absentee voting as being a blank check for fraud. And it is, I’ve seen it. The surgeons and firefighters you mentioned just had bad timing. That happens. Life ain’t perfect. But having every doctor and cop and firefighter and who knows who else absentee voting is nonsense. You’re just begging for massive fraud. And I don’t understand why you can’t vote while volunteering at the polls. My neighbor votes and he works at the polls.

    Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27)

  96. Rev. Hoagie – I live at address [x] in precinct [y].

    If I’ve been directed by my county office to work in the polling place for precinct [z], and precinct [z] is a forty minute drive from precinct [y], I cannot vote in person in precinct [y].

    So absent absentee voting, I don’t get to vote.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  97. I was expecting DTS voters to be able to request presidential primary ballots from either major party, but this is apparently not the case.

    That was originally the idea, but several parties, including the CA GOP, sued for the right to control their own nominations, citing the rights of speech, assembly and petition.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  98. So truckers are so stupid they can’t plan their work? And every single trucker will be on the road ALL day election day so every single trucker needs an absentee ballot? But I’ll go with your premise if you prove that every trucker votes. You’re being absurd.

    Note to leftist community organizers: John Hitchcock says send in absentee ballots for another million democrat “truckers”.

    Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27)

  99. Kevin M – yeah, I voted for the jungle primary, before I moved to NY. I think overall it’s had a good effect.

    I have not seen one. It has almost eliminated 3rd parties, or the ability to organize one. It has not led to the promised alternatives where there is an incumbent in a single-party district. My Congresswoman, Maxine Waters, has never has another Democrat challenge her in the jungle primary. Who would dare?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  100. This problem can be avoided with a robust system of in-person early voting at county elections offices.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  101. Maybe you should actually point to some evidence of the use of absentee ballots to facilitate voting fraud, Hoagie, before you go disenfranchising wide swathes of people on the basis of an unfounded suspicion.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  102. aphrael this is a volunteer job, correct? Then tell them you need to work at Y or you’ll be an hour late so you can vote. Is it really that hard to be a liberal? Do you really need to make a major production about something so easily solved?

    Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27)


  103. Id’s to vote are a double edged sword. What happens when mrs. clinton says you have to prove your not a racist to vote in federal elections and arrest conservate state administration for trying to allow republicans to vote?

    That’s VERY far down whatever slippery slope your fevered dreams imagine. More likely, you and the Trumpkins like your ballot-box stuffing and assorted voter fraud.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  104. Kevin M – I think we’re very likely to get it statewide in the Senate race this year.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  105. 104.Maybe you should actually point to some evidence of the use of absentee ballots to facilitate voting fraud, Hoagie, before you go disenfranchising wide swathes of people on the basis of an unfounded suspicion.

    First, I’m not disenfranchising anybody Levidicus. Second, I already did point to evidence, I witnessed it. It’s called eye witness.

    Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27)

  106. It’s happened a bit, around the margins. According to http://escholarship.org/uc/item/245473kh, in 2014, there were 25 same-party runoffs for Assembly, State Senate, aand Congress. According to http://vote.caltech.edu/sites/default/files/WP_107_1.pdf, there were 29 in 2012.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  107. aphreal, Cruz Supporter is an obnoxious cockroach, he picks arguments by mischaracterizing comments.

    I considered warning you earlier but I decided to let you experience his act before I put my 2 cents in. I ignore him, he’s nothing but a unpleasant waste of time.

    Liviticus, no, Cruz Supporter has been asked several times if he commented here previously using a different screen name. To my knowledge he has yet to respond. He ignores the question and I ignore him.

    ropelight (1ec750)

  108. But the whole absentee thing sort of messes that up.

    As does early voting (which I dislike on general principles).

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  109. Ann Coulter may not be your cup of tea, but she nailed the predominant thing many Americans care about: immigration.

    Except that exit polls say nothing of the sort.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  110. When I scheduled time off 2 months in advance, to be at a certain place on a certain day so I could catch an international flight, I ended up losing an additional 4 days in front, just so the company could make sure I was at that place. Because I don’t have a there-and-back freight lane. I cover all 48 states and don’t know where I’m going one day to the next.

    Hoagie, learn about OTR trucking before you make an arse of yourself again.

    John Hitchcock (0997d2)

  111. Kevin M – I think early voting, properly controlled, is no more fraud-risky than polling place voting, and can solve many of the problems absentee voting was intended to solve (without the fraud risk represented by absentee voting). Why do you dislike it?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  112. And Washington State, there is no voting at precincts. It’s all by mail. Every vote.

    John Hitchcock (0997d2)

  113. Kevin M – I think we’re very likely to get it statewide in the Senate race this year.

    We did not have it in 2014 with an incumbent Senator and Governor. Which was the entire point of it. That you get it with an open seat is poor recompense, if not actually harmful.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  114. I dislike early voting as it allows people to opt out of major portions of the campaign. Everyone should vote as near to the actual “day” as possible. I do support absentee ballots for legitimate reasons (travel, infirmities), but having seen what goes on in old folks homes, I know there is significant fraud — particularly children voting their senile parent’s ballot. It’s trivial and signatures don’t help — arthritis makes signatures illegible.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  115. As someone who voted for it, I disagree with the ‘entire point’ proposition.

    Honestly I never expected it to operate on a statewide race – I expected it to happen in really unbalanced *districts*, and I expected it to be more useful in open races – by providing the general election electorate with the ability to choose between more or less extreme candidates of the party whose victory was inevitable, rather than between an extreme version of the dominant party and an extreme version of the out-of-power party.

    So in my mind if it’s doing that on the margins, it’s working as intended. :)

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  116. Hello all, here is today’s epiphany…Trump is our nominee. Some of you are like me (yesterday) incredulous but it will happen. This is a rape event and should be dealt with as such. Your panties are coming off, there will be forcible entry, you should keep your wits so you can make a criminal complaint afterwards.

    pieter, why are you thrashing the Patterico forum buzz? Well, I had a very interesting conversation with a CW4 today whom I respect…a constitionalist, libertarian, purist 2A guy, Cruz supporter, but adamant that in the general election there is no other choice but Trump. I rebutted his faults that we’ve discussed ad nauseam on this forum. Didn’t matter. This guy is smart, eloquent, logical, purposeful…a future Trump voter.

    The reasonable folk, no different than you or I, will vote (eventually) for Trump.

    We, me, us, I need to reconcile the brutal truth that Trump is going to happen. You have no say in the matter, prison love will occur without your consent. Scream and cry, appeal to the authorities…to no avail or appeal.

    This hurts to understand. What is required is a plan to rationalize the aftermath. There is no other reality.

    pieter (ec44a2)

  117. trump exciting and new come aboard we’re expecting you

    happyfeet (8e2eaf)

  118. In a dark place…have mercy, shut up, happyfeet.

    pieter (ec44a2)

  119. aphrael,

    You’re saying the government reserves the right to tell private businesses such as liquor stores and gun dealers that they must see an ID for a purchase. But if other private enterprises such as Marriott or Enterprise or Chase asks for that same ID, are they violating people’s right to privacy? I’m just asking—is that your claim?

    But here’s the kicker…if the government reserves the right to demand an ID of a citizen for a purchase at a private business such as a liquor store or gun dealer, then why does the same government not reserve the right to demand the ID of a citizen at a government sponsored election?

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  120. Cruz Supporter,

    Let me tell you about aphrael.

    He’s very much a Leftist in most things. He knows I declare him wrong on almost everything. He also knows I respect him because he debates honorably and will take the time to research what he’s told about. He’s not a reflexive prick. He’s that rare breed: a good guy who is honorably wrong about everything.

    John Hitchcock (0997d2)

  121. In the weeds. Clinton and Trump, we prefer to argue that which is still in our limited ken. Profound realities are about to unfold, one’s unwanted or even imagined. Choose the small while the opportunity given, tomorrow is full of ignored sorrow. Fools, all of you.

    pieter (ec44a2)

  122. I will not accept Trump as our nominee until after Cruz loses Texas and Rubio loses Florida,
    And I do not think Cruz will lose Texas,
    And then we’ll see what is next.

    MD not exactly in Philly (deca84)

  123. well magic eightball would suggest you’re right pieter, because of the combination of issues and targeted demographics,

    narciso (732bc0)

  124. If Trump wins it all, Sharpton says he is out of here.
    Consolation prize?

    mg (31009b)

  125. Al Sharpton stated if Trump wins he’s leaving the country.

    Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27)

  126. If you are a conservative…filled to to brim with thoughts of limited government, deficit control, regulatory reform, addressing entitlements, reaffirming our sovereign individual liberty…well, better be prepared to wait five years. This republic is about to be Trumped and God knows what that will entail.

    The assured future is one of apprehensive doubt…we have no idea as to 2A rights, amnesty, federal judge appointments, big business/wall street cronyism, utilizing the government to harm our political enemies, continued funding of planned parenthood, status quo entitlements, and “deals” with the Democrat.

    If you meet a Trump supporter, remember their face and if possible get their name. There has to be some culpability when this is all done.

    pieter (ec44a2)

  127. Leviticus- I was informed a few posts ago that icy might be c.s. as he posted an R.I.P.

    mg (31009b)

  128. doesn’t have icy’s light hearted touch, imo,

    how about those who voted for romney, and he rolled over like a st, bernard with crowley, or maverick who threw the match entirely,

    narciso (732bc0)

  129. No way C.S. is icy.

    felipe (56556d)

  130. MD, bless your soul for living with hope. You are delusional, which doesn’t make you a bad person, just flawed in your ability to recognize reality.

    We, who have had hope in an alternative, are doomed. No offense, but I have made it my solemn task to dispel the illusions of my brothers.

    pieter (ec44a2)

  131. pieter, MD is not delusional. That you say it, does not make it so.

    felipe (56556d)

  132. Al Sharpton stated if Trump wins he’s leaving the country.

    Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27) — 2/25/2016 @ 4:49 pm

    All upside there…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  133. they never follow through with that promise, otherwise alec baldwin would be a fond memory,

    narciso (732bc0)

  134. I started with 119 and will not relent until you and the rest recognize reality, preferably proven with your tears. Cruz et al are done. Recognize your new overlords, bow, display fealty…otherwise you know how he gets…might take your jacket as he turns you into the cold night or has someone punch you in the face.

    pieter (ec44a2)

  135. 115.And Washington State, there is no voting at precincts. It’s all by mail. Every vote.

    And that’s fine Mr. Hitchcock. Everybody votes one way so it’s harder to cheat. But if you have some people voting by mail and some in person who’s to say if one has already voted? I’ve been there and watched people who sent in absentee ballots vote. Many times. I’ve seen them send in hundreds of absentee ballots in people’s names who had no idea it was being done.

    Nobody is “being disenfranchised” by not allowing absentee ballots. They are disenfranchising themselves by not extending the effort necessary to cast their ballot. The franchise is there, they just aren’t using it.

    Beside, what difference does it make? What I think has nothing to do with it. All states have absentee voting whether I agree or not. So aphreal can go volunteer and a magic unicorn will whisk her vote to the proper authority cause anything else requiring the slightest effort is disenfranchising. And if thousands of people abuse it who cares? Our votes don’t really matter anyway. I don’t think even President Trump will be able to do anything about that.

    Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27)

  136. RIP Sonny James, dead at 87…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  137. Moving to debate thread.

    pieter (ec44a2)

  138. …I don’t consider it an imperative that Hillary win; if I did, I would consider voting for her, and I will never vote for her. But I will support any conservative third party alternative, even if it assures Hillary’s victory, and I will otherwise wash my hands of the whole thing.

    My reason for preferring Hillary is that a GOP Congress will oppose Hillary’s leftist policies. It will enact Trump’s leftist policies. I’d rather have the former…

    And given the course of action you plan on taking, what makes you think we’ll even have a GOP congress to oppose Hillary!’s leftist policies. If Hillary! is elected odds are that we’ll get more Democrats down-ticket and lose the Senate, at least.

    I can’t stand Trump, but whatever moral failings he possesses, Hillary! has more of. Have you read the Office of Independent Counsel’s memo, “HRC Order of Proof?”

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/hillary-clinton-is-an-old-hand-when-it-comes-to-stealing-documents.php

    As Paul Mirengoff observes, “…the evidence against Clinton was substantial” and “…Hillary Clinton deserved to be indicted and might well have been convicted.”

    Compared to Hillary! Donald Trump is the J.V. team. of potential fascist dictators. We’ve already seen how she operates. She clearly set up her home server to thumb her nose at the Freedom of Information Act as well as the Federal Records Act. If you want more unaccountability and lawlessness on an even larger scale than Obama then Hillary! is preferable to Trump.

    And I’m including the unaccountable federal bureaucracy. They’ll only be emboldened to go after Hillary!’s enemies because as dyed-in-the-wool leftists her enemies are their enemies. That’s one thing we learned from the IRS emails. If you are in favor of smaller, limited government you are against the IRS, the EPA, the DoE (both of them), etc. Obama didn’t need to send them a signed letter telling them what he wanted them to do. He just had to signal that they were off the leash, and they would suffer not consequences. They got the message and went after their mutual enemies.

    But they’ll never do that for Trump; he has an R after his name. He’s no R, of course, but that doesn’t matter to the grasping federal employee union members posing as public servants.

    On the scale of pure evil, Trump just doesn’t match Hillary!f and the political calculation doesn’t add up.

    Steve57 (b12073)

  139. >But if you have some people voting by mail and some in person who’s to say if one has already voted?

    Looking just at the process in Santa Cruz and San Mateo counties when I worked there:

    (a) everyone who has requested an absentee ballot prior to the books being printed is marked in the books as having done so.

    (b) everyone who has requested *after* being printed is manually marked by the inspector. I’ve taken phone calls from the county at 11pm on the night before the election providing me with a list of people to mark, and marked them as instructed.

    (c) Everyone who is marked is not allowed to vote a regular ballot. They ARE allowed to cast a *provisional* ballot, which is placed in a sealed envelope and only counted if either (i) the county determines the individual did not *cast* an absentee ballot vote OR (ii) a court has ordered the ballot to be counted.

    > magic unicorn will whisk her vote to the proper authorit

    not a magic unicorn, actually!

    Again, speaking from my experience: at the end of the night, two members of the polling board take the ballots, etc, to the county office. This includes everything which has already been counted by machine (which is placed in one bag) and everything which needs to be hand verified (provisionals, absentees, ballots with write ins, and in the old days all of the scantron ballots which were centrally processed); they are delivered to the county officials.

    Which is to say, if I turn in my absentee ballot at the polling place where I am working, the relevant members of my election board will deliver the ballot in *precisely* the same way that they’d deliver, say, write-in ballots from my precinct — to the *same office* which counts both of them.

    This doesn’t work across county lines, obviously. But then I’m only going to be allowed to volunteer in my county of registration. :)

    aphrael (3f0569)

  140. you would be surprised how many provisional ballots are pushed for, which may decide the race in close contests, if the address isn’t up to date,

    narciso (732bc0)

  141. This reminds me that I need to actually mail my response card to the NYC Board of Elections (which sent me an “are you still here?” snail mail threatening, with perfectly good reason, to revoke my registration).

    aphrael (3f0569)

  142. Yes. If forced into a choice between Clinton and Trump, I will prefer Hillary Clinton.

    Then you are a fucking clotheaded imbecile unworthy of possession of the right of franchise.

    Bad as Trump is, he would NOT be any worse than Hillary.

    Frankly, more than like what will happen is as follows:

    1) Hillary cheats her way to the Dem nom.
    2) Trump wins the GOP nom thanks to the other end of the same spectrum that voted for Obama — falling for the same horseshit “Hope And Change”, this time in the key of “R”. Two weeks before the election — ca. Oct 20 — he gets into a huff over some idiotic BS “mistreatment” by either the media or the GOP — and drops out. This leaves the electorate in a complete and total shambles, as the very IDEA of anything like that requires someone thinking about how Hillary can truly cheat her way all the way to the White House. Remember, Trump and Hillary are GOOD FRIENDS. They DISCUSSED his candidacy prior to his announcement. So what did they discuss? How she would reward him with Crony support from the Fed if she won? If he successfully neutralized the GOP threat? Because the sentiment a YEAR ago was “anyone but Hillary”.

    What happens if the GOP Nom drops out 2 weeks before the election? What LEGALLY happens to the election when there is only one actual candidate on the ballot?

    Cynical? Yeah, I’m damned sure getting that way with this many idiots swallowing Trump’s utter bovine excreta like it was chocolate syrup. The man is a blatant RINO spouting exactly what the LIV Right wants to hear.

    Nicholas Bretagna II (225d0d)

  143. If the election is a choice between socialism and facism, I’ll take Trump the fascist. How can you downplay the damage Hill will do to the country, selling everything to the highest foreign bidder. We’ve had a fascist in the WH for eight years and the Republicans have no interest in curtailing his powers, how bout a Republican fascist?

    Ustuplay (4dd398)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4978 secs.