Patterico's Pontifications

5/4/2016

What Is To Be Done?

Filed under: Constitutional Vanguard,General — Patterico @ 7:33 am

[UPDATE: If you want to be a member of the Constitutional Vanguard, sign up here. It takes about ten seconds.]

A few days ago I was chatting with a blogger and author whose name you would recognize. We were talking about the increasing likelihood that Trump was going to win Indiana and therefore the nomination. I asked him: “So what happens next?” He is giving a presentation on his new book this week and was planning to talk about this very issue in his talk. The problem is, he doesn’t know.

Neither do I. But I think we’ll figure something out, we constitutionalists who believe in limited government and liberty.

In coming weeks, my decision to leave the Republican party will be confirmed, as the majority of Republicans “rally around” an obvious con man who would be the ruin of limited government and constitutionalism. I won’t encourage a vote for or against Donald Trump. The presidency is not the way to fix the mess we face.

So what is?

Astute readers with a knowledge of history might recognize the title of this post as the title of a tract by Lenin published in 1902. His idea was to create a “vanguard” of Marxists to spread Marxist ideas. It is little known that the Bolsheviks were a relatively small movement of activists when they took over. What they lacked in numbers, they made up for in zeal and organization.

Constitutionalists hate Lenin, but there is no reason we can’t emulate his idea of a vanguard of people committed to a cause. His cause was an economic system designed to oppress and ultimately kill millions. Our cause is protecting our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Trump has made it easy for us to identify one another. If you hate Trump, it’s probably because you believe we should return to the system of our founders: a system where federal government respects the limits prescribed by the Constitution; where bureaucrats cannot form a shadow government where they act as lawmaker, judge, jury, and executioner; and where our God-given rights are truly respected and cannot be taken away at the whim of a leftist, whether they call themselves Republican or Democrat.

One thing I think I want to do is get us together in some way. I want to have a way of talking more directly to those of you who really care about changing this country and bringing us back to constitutional principles. I’ll have to figure out the logistics of this in coming days, but if you’re interested, use the signup form here, and I’ll add you to the list. You’ll be part of the vanguard.

What will we do? I don’t know yet. But whatever we do, we’re going to strike blows for liberty, the free market, and the Constitution.

UPDATE: I’m heartened by the response. In just 20 minutes, we’re already getting a head start on gathering together a group of people who care about liberty and the Constitution. There’s something about seeing the emails roll in that reaffirms one’s faith a little.

I think just having the group will mean something.

UPDATE x2: I have decided to call this group the Constitutional Vanguard. Thanks to Ted Frank for the name.

428 Responses to “What Is To Be Done?”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  2. And we have a taker!

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  3. Get out the local vote and elect any and all opposition to The Beltway
    If your rep is a bum get started on 2018 NOW….

    Mr Wizard (c31051)

  4. Wouldn’t the best thing to do is to find some third party candidate who can take enough electoral votes in the right states to throw the election to the House of Representatives?

    Kevin (78fdfb)

  5. I’m not sure about that, Kevin. You’re thinking outside the box, and that’s good, but I think we need to examine more structural changes.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  6. Yes to structural changes. A third party seems more viable now than at any time since 1992 or even before. However, that won’t be in time for Nov 2016.

    If the goal is to keep both Trump and Clinton out of the White House, and that is my goal, putting enough resources behind a current third party candidate in the right states might make a difference.

    That is assuming there are enough #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary citizens out there. I think there are.

    Kevin (78fdfb)

  7. Wouldn’t the best thing to do is to find some third party candidate who can take enough electoral votes in the right states to throw the election to the House of Representatives?

    That would be good if possible, but I don’t see how anybody but the Democrat and the Republican can carry any states. Even a district in Maine or Nebraska seems impossible, but if we were to go that route that may be the most achievable goal. And it would have to be someone the House might actually choose, or what would be the point? Remember they only get a choice of the top three.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  8. UPDATE: I’m heartened by the response. In just 20 minutes, we’re already getting a head start on gathering together a group of people who care about liberty and the Constitution. There’s something about seeing the emails roll in that reaffirms one’s faith a little.

    I think just having the group will mean something.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  9. Drink the poison or eat teh sh*tburger.

    Colonel Haiku (40880a)

  10. I want to reiterate….
    If Clinton is going to be elected, sufficient opposition will be essential…
    You must get out and vote for your Representatives and Senators…
    State and Local Elections will be the difference between life and death…
    The Trump people beat us….they can do the rest themselves… but we don’t have to help them

    Mr Wizard (c31051)

  11. Honestly, I do not believe Clinton will remain on ticket until September(regardless of convention). No doubt in my mind, Biden/Warren are conducting a shadow campaign now. Biden’s public appearances are carefully chosen to appear “in charge/statesmanlike/worldly” and his speech to decline to run was clear the speech of a politician who IS running.Warren is chief leftist attack dog on social media – she is already campaigning against Trump/GOP/Conservatives (no matter where you are in that spectrum). Bernie remains in race to galvanize leftist coalition and keep party ripe for Obama/Jarrett/Soros chosen successors. This is a chess game and I see few who even have a clue what their checkmate strategy really is. We all really need to wake up.

    DubCPA (22e199)

  12. What is to be done? Trump is a bozo–but Hillary is Lucifer in The Flesh–to coin a Boehnerism.

    I’m a #NeverHilllary kind of guy. So what will I do in November faced with two very unpalatable choices? And don’t tell me that the Dems will somehow ride to the rescue with a Slow Joe Fauxcahontas ticket.

    Skeptical Voter (1d5c8b)

  13. I like this idea. I definitely agree we need to hit the down elections and form a strong opposition to whoever is President.

    Patrick Henry, the 2nd (ddead1)

  14. Your note written after the results were known was read by Glenn Beck this morning on his radio show. His comment – “this is exactly how I feel.”

    Bob (d95867)

  15. In.

    I’ve thought a lot about structural and tactical ways to move forward. Taken steps on getting some of them running even before recent events. Love to talk to you about them. Sending email now

    Chris L (97108f)

  16. Just because I desperately need distraction:

    Lenin was riffing on an immensely popular novel of the same title. Lenin loved that book – and it is just unreadable in any language whatsoever, so far as I can tell.

    Having excrable literary taste is not a hanging offense, but it should disqualify one from leading a country.

    Dianna (b7aa4f)

  17. It seems to me the first question to ask is how much of this is Trump the man, the personality, the celebrity and how much of it is something deeper? If it’s largely the man, the celebrity-cum-politician (Berlusconi comes to mind) then the response is to wait the man out. If it’s something deeper – that is to say it’s less Trump and more a willingness to support the proverbial “man on horseback”, a perceived strong man that the public rallies around when they feel the current system is failing – then the response is similarly different.

    So, is it largely Trump or something more? Trump has gotten away with things that no other person or figure that I know of could do. It is astonishing. I think it’s mostly Trump but not entirely.

    Frankly, I don’t know.

    SteveMG (205671)

  18. I’d like to be part of the group, I respect you, the Constitution, I’m a life long advocate of limited government, and liberty is second only to my rights as an American citizen, however, I won’t associate with with hate mongers, short-sighted crybullies, and fair weather friends.

    Please put me down as a potential applicant. I’d have to know who was on the team before I applied for membership.

    ropelight (ae1ce7)

  19. I am not interested.

    DRJ (15874d)

  20. FOX NEWS reports that John Kasich is suspending his campaign.

    ropelight (ae1ce7)

  21. The reason I am not interested is that we now know that our nexr President is willing to target people who protest their policies and actions. They are both like Obama when it comes to people who oppose them. This is a direct consequence of the choice Republican primary voters made.

    DRJ (15874d)

  22. California used to be republican. Then came the John Birch Society.
    Your proposal sounds like a rebirth. Maybe, on a national scale.
    We have had a one party state…you want a one party nation.

    hamiyam (da667e)

  23. i think the subtext is wrong

    this idea that ted lost cause everybody hates the constitution and limited government

    so cons like ted – they’ve pissed away any and all credibility they may have ever had with respect to limited government, and his harvardtrash buddy john roberts already trashed the holy hell out of the myth of constitutional governance

    happyfeet (831175)

  24. this idea that ted lost cause everybody hates the constitution and limited government

    so cons like ted – they’ve pissed away any and all credibility they may have ever had with respect to limited government, and his harvardtrash buddy john roberts already trashed the holy hell out of the myth of constitutional governance

    happyfeet (831175) — 5/4/2016 @ 9:10 am

    Well Trump and his estabtrash buddy John Boehner certainly aren’t for the Constitution and limited government. Even if they don’t hate those concepts, they clearly don’t care about them. They care more about “fighting” and personality than principles.

    Patrick Henry, the 2nd (ddead1)

  25. Go join the other locksteppers in the indentity politics party, hammysammich. Go sell crazy elsewhere.

    Colonel Haiku (40880a)

  26. Please put me down as a potential applicant. I’d have to know who was on the team before I applied for membership.
    ropelight (ae1ce7) — 5/4/2016 @ 8:56 am

    Congratulations, Patterico. Not two hours in and you already have your first infiltrator.

    nk (dbc370)

  27. FOX NEWS reports that John Kasich is suspending his campaign.

    ropelight (ae1ce7) — 5/4/2016 @ 9:05 am

    ====================================

    and teh nation emits a collective sigh of relief…

    Colonel Haiku (40880a)

  28. Mr. Trump’s role may be to spark a renewed appreciation for limited government among Team R Mr. 2nd – there’s early signs that this may be the case maybe – that we may be on that path

    but that’s not even the point

    we’ve known for sometime the constitution is a joke – and that’s not Mr. Trump’s fault in the slightest

    the point is that if this weirdo fetishization of our sad failed constitution isn’t conjoined with a health respect for democracy, it’s useless i think

    and all this whiny whiny sore loser crybaby nonsense we’re hearing lately?

    it’s a distillation of a profound contempt for democracy i think

    the voters surprised everybody this year

    after the years and years of food stamp’s unyielding america-raping dogmatism

    after the years and years of a failed and feeble republican “opposition” notable primarily for cowardice and stagnation

    the voters surprised everybody!

    it’s the most heartening thing to happen in decades

    happyfeet (831175)

  29. *some time* i mean

    happyfeet (831175)

  30. How could I be an infiltrator if I decline to be associated with the likes of you, nk?

    ropelight (ae1ce7)

  31. As I said in another thread, many revolutions are coming. Some will involve shooting. All preparations are valid.

    I wish we were in a time when a constitutionalist like Cruz could make our all the way, but too much of the electorate has been replaced.

    I’ve heard it suggested that Cruz’s best path forward is taking his ground machine and turning it into the conservative Organizing for America. That gets him a seat at any future table to influence things properly. You can start your own.

    luagha (0f9f29)

  32. 4.Wouldn’t the best thing to do is to find some third party candidate who can take enough electoral votes in the right states to throw the election to the House of Representatives?

    This is not a reality based plan.

    James B. Shearer (708165)

  33. it’s the most heartening thing to happen in decades

    You’ve convinced me. I’m going to grow a mullet and stop going to the dentist.

    nk (dbc370)

  34. I’m not joining, rooflight.

    nk (dbc370)

  35. this weirdo fetishization of our sad failed constitution

    Who needs free speech, freedom of religion etc. Got to get those Christians in reeducation camps.

    Gerald A (945582)

  36. i went to the dentist yesterday I LOVE my new chicago dentist

    happyfeet (831175)

  37. Who needs free speech, freedom of religion etc. Got to get those Christians in reeducation camps.

    ugh this is ugh

    there is so much angst in these parts caused by what?

    Mr. Trump’s exercisings of free speech

    they say ohnoes you can’t speak like that and be president

    Mr. Trump is violating the speech rules of civility and decorum!!! it’s disqualifying and it puts George Will off his pudding cup

    oh yeah?

    i don’t think so gus

    happyfeet (831175)

  38. they say ohnoes you can’t speak like that and be president

    Mr. Trump is violating the speech rules of civility and decorum!!! it’s disqualifying and it puts George Will off his pudding cup

    This is absurd. Is anyone saying he should be prosecuted for saying these things? That he should be arrested?

    No one says that Trump doesn’t have the right to say these ugly things; only that it’s not the right thing to do.

    The reason that Trump has the right to say these things and not be prosecuted is because of the very same Constitution that you dismiss as a relic.

    SteveMG (205671)

  39. CNN poll: Hillary 54, Trump 41. Sad!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  40. DRJ has a point. Both Trump and Clinton have a history of bully squads to attack opponents.

    SPQR (f061b5)

  41. after the years and years of a failed and feeble republican “opposition” notable primarily for cowardice and stagnation

    the voters surprised everybody!

    it’s the most heartening thing to happen in decades

    They sure did surprise everybody. They chose a con man who will do everything they are opposed to. BRILLIANT.

    Patrick Henry, the 2nd (ddead1)

  42. only that it’s not the right thing to do.

    the voters don’t seem to agree

    but i bet pee-stank does

    happyfeet (831175)

  43. Just now you’ve given up hope? Hell, I threw all my American flags in the garbage and started dressing in black on the 4th of July years ago. Planet Earth, for freedom-lovers and decent people, is done.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  44. You lost me at Lenin. Are you sure it’s not John Lennon you mean?

    Even then. You say you want a revolution?

    Vladimir Ilich Ulanov! (YouTube – coarse language alert)

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  45. This is for DRJ, but you all can watch it too. At 00:50 and on is the point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd3JrFXLrA0 Contains one bad word.

    nk (dbc370)

  46. They chose a con man who will do everything they are opposed to.

    this is also a recent and weird part of the new landscape, these weirdly confident prognosticationings

    I understood that with food stamp cause of he had a record

    I understand it with pee-stank cause of she has a record

    I don’t see how you can project out Mr. Trump’s past as a real estate developer tv star brand manager to how he’ll serve as president

    we’ll just have to see

    he may suck

    but he won’t be ted cruz will he

    ted cruz has been judged and found wanting

    and i don’t think it has anything to do with his much-vaunted principles

    happyfeet (831175)

  47. This is all so…Sad!
    We had an impressive bench to choose from…Jindal, Walker, Perry, Fiorina, and of course Rubio and Cruz.

    It’s absolute proof that we’re living in a Kim Kardashian world when Donald Trump can beat all of the aforementioned pols in a GOP primary race.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  48. The GOP voters made their choice, that’s how representative government works. If you’ve got a problem with that, you’ve got a problem with the history and traditions of constitutional government.

    We are now entering the general election against Hillary Clinton, the very walking exemplar of a life long corrupt money grubbing commie bitch representing the Democrat Party.

    Put your big boy pants on and get about the business at hand: saving the USA from certain destruction.

    ropelight (ae1ce7)

  49. Depends on who’s doing the judging, now don’t it? You trust that Trumpkin in Indiana’s judgment better than JD’s?

    nk (dbc370)

  50. A third party seems more viable now than at any time since 1992 or even before.

    Not to dispute someone else named Kevin, but in California at least it is still possible to form a new party AND field a candidate for 2016. The process is described here: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/political-parties — it takes about 45-50K voter registrations, which can be done here: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/political-parties

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  51. the voters don’t seem to agree

    but i bet pee-stank does

    What does this have to do with the Constitution and the right to say ridiculous things?

    In the past two elections these same voter that you revere put into power Barack Obama.

    So excuse me if I don’t worship at the altar of the voters.

    SteveMG (205671)

  52. Yeah. But I live in California. Those guys standing out in front of Walmart to get signature- they don’t do that for free. And the people who would sign up, you have to promise them something.
    A tangible something. A bribe. Which is how Lenin did it.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  53. Yes, lets all pretend the founding fathers sat around writing policy papers. Nope they never rioted. Never broke the law. Everyone one of them was terrified of being rude just like the staunch conservatives of today.

    When conservatives are willing to burn a town down to show their conviction, I will be impressed, until then you are nothing like the founders.

    Teb (74c644)

  54. A primary election has nothing to do with our representative government. Primaries are run by the state parties – and the national – and are private affairs. The government has nothing to do with it.

    You do know that many presidential primary candidates who got most of the votes weren’t selected as the candidate? The parties chose other candidates.

    SteveMG (205671)

  55. In the past two elections these same voter that you revere put into power Barack Obama.

    yes yes they did

    which is why i’ve always thought it was extremely quixotic to posit that their next choice would be harvardtrash ted santorum

    happyfeet (831175)

  56. I’m spending my last years giving thanks, and worshiping The Lord. Fear of The Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  57. You trust that Trumpkin in Indiana’s judgment better than JD’s?

    that is no fairs

    it’s not about trust

    it’s about what resonates

    happyfeet (831175)

  58. Kasich is suspending, now that he got what he wanted. What a guy.

    Trump is behind Hillary by double digits and the press hasn’t even gotten started yet. At the end of Cruz’s campaign, the pathetic, desperate meme was that Trump was beating Hillary and Cruz’s dad helped kill JFK, but now the smoke has cleared and he’s behind by double digits again. Huh.

    Priority one is Trump losing. That’s what is to be done until November.

    Hillary is a better, more disciplined and experienced leader. She is vastly more decent to her opponents and critics than Trump, albeit DRJ’s right she’s not actually good to her critics. There’s also Gary Johnson, who is talking a lot about fiscal conservatism lately.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  59. and teh nation emits a collective sigh of relief…

    I would happily vote for Kasich if that was the price of Trump not running.

    I know that Patterico’s first choice was Ted Cruz. He wasn’t mine, but my first, second and third choices had all dropped out long since. This was a bout Donald Trump. There were, by some counts, 17 declared candidates and I would have voted for all of them not named Trump. Even Santorum and Huckabee were better than Hillary.

    Trump however is not just a poor outcome. He is an existentially poor outcome. He presents a clear and present threat to the continuation of the Republic. Either he will attempt to assume dictatorial powers, or he will, through ignorance and stupidity, cause a major war or other permanent damage to the nation’s well-being.

    He is beyond the pale. It is hard to imagine a worse choice.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  60. #48 ropelite,

    You ought to consider what SteveMG wrote #54 when he pointed out that the primaries are private affairs conducted by the GOP—they’re not exercises in “Constitutional government” as you boasted.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  61. #53, Teb wrote: When conservatives are willing to burn a town down to show their conviction, I will be impressed, until then you are nothing like the founders.

    I don’t know anyone so stupid as to actually burn down a town, but as metaphor I fully understand your conviction. Keep an eye on the GOP convention. If some cabal makes a serious effort to deny the nomination to Donald Trump we’ll see lots of people in the street, nation wide.

    ropelight (ae1ce7)

  62. He is beyond the pale. It is hard to imagine a worse choice.

    I can think of two. But only one is preordained.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  63. I sure hope the convention denies the nomination to Trump. If they are patriots they will do so. It’s also the only way Hillary will lose.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  64. In some respects this is the Tea Party’s fault, for stirring things up abut never supplying a candidate. They never wanted to dilute the GOP’s strength, even when the Congressional leadership did its best to marginalize them.

    Now is the Tea Party’s chance. There is no GOP Presidential candidate. There is time to get one on enough state ballots that there is a chance to drag the election into the House. I’ve been saying this for some time now, and that other Kevin brings it up again today.

    A party devoted to a small federal government, with the states having most of the power, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, free enterprise and personal responsibility — and leaving combative social issues outside the party’s purview (and state issues in any event), might have some legs.

    They called themselves the Tea Party, put perhaps “Federalist” is a better name, as the desire is for a federal republic, not one vig state run from DC.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  65. ugh this is ugh

    there is so much angst in these parts caused by what?

    Mr. Trump’s exercisings of free speech

    No, it’s Mr Trump’s use of government power to chill other people’s free speech, and his open threat to do more than that if given the chance.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  66. How could I be an infiltrator if I decline to be associated with the likes of you, nk?

    I’m not joining, rooflight.

    I am. And I do so with the knowledge that ropelight won’t associate with me. A badge of honor, actually.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  67. Trump however is not just a poor outcome. He is an existentially poor outcome. He presents a clear and present threat to the continuation of the Republic. Either he will attempt to assume dictatorial powers, or he will, through ignorance and stupidity, cause a major war or other permanent damage to the nation’s well-being.

    Does anyone seriously deny Kevin’s thoughts here?

    We are familiar with Trump. Will he not push and push for more powers, kinda like Obama has only to a far greater degree? Being president is hard, largely because of the limitations the constitution creates. Trump doesn’t care about rules and will see how far he can go, but who is going to stop him? The voters are the only thing that can.

    Trump fabricated lies about the family of his opponents. Does anyone expect that to stop if he’s the president?

    What do his supporters talk about? Riots and destruction as part of their support for Trump.

    Right now, everyone who loves this country must unite and demand Trump not be president.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  68. The founders didn’t burn New York down.

    According to historian Barnet Schecter, no accusation of arson has withstood scrutiny. – from the wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_New_York_(1776) .

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  69. If I read any more of Hillary Clinton being a better, disciplined, more experienced leader I think I’ll puke.

    Colonel Haiku (40880a)

  70. this might could be our first christmas with president trump, this one coming up

    he won’t actually get to be president til next year but you know what i mean

    i’m so excited snowbells ring are you listening

    i always felt guilty about spending at christmas while food stamp was in office

    not no mores

    America gonna be ours again

    an America for the people!

    silent night holy night all is calm all is bright

    happyfeet (831175)

  71. nk, at 26: I’ve been considering, all morning, whether *I* would be an infiltrator. I disagree with our proprietor on most major issues of policy, after all; but a rallying cry for people who object to shadow government were bureaucrats act as lawmaker, judge, jury, and executioner – and for people who want our rights to be respected and not subject to suspension on a whim … that’s a ralying cry which is hard to resist.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  72. this might could be our first christmas with president trump, this one coming up

    No, this Christmas he would only be President-elect, assuming he wins the election. Obama’s still President until January, 2017

    Chuck Bartowski (8489f0)

  73. If I read any more of Hillary Clinton being a better, disciplined, more experienced leader I think I’ll puke.

    Colonel Haiku (40880a) — 5/4/2016 @ 10:41 am

    That’s the reality.

    Trump has no experience and this would be his first office held. His business experience is inheriting riches and then fiasco after fiasco. Hillary has far more than that.

    Trump is totally undisciplined. He threatened to ‘spill the beans’ on Cruz’s wife if Cruz continued to criticize Trump. When Cruz continued it turned out this ‘dirt’ was ugly pictures of Cruz’s wife. Trump has threatened his critics with cryptic warnings about what happens if Trump is president, and even lawsuit threats to the press.

    That is why Trump is behind by double digits, and will remain behind.

    Why do you support him? Trump threatened to run as an independent, against the Republican candidate, if he didn’t get his way this year. You’re not even loyal to a republican… but an admitted independent who himself has no loyalty to the party.

    Hillary is not nearly as bad. She won’t nuke anyone and her nastiness has limitations. She has a much better understanding of separation of powers, and her fans don’t threaten to burn cities.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  74. > He presents a clear and present threat to the continuation of the Republic. Either he will attempt to assume dictatorial powers, or he will, through ignorance and stupidity, cause a major war or other permanent damage to the nation’s well-being.

    Unfortunately, I agree. :{

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  75. My real hope is that a serious and credible GOPe candidate emerges — someone palatable to real Republicans and centrists — who is not only clearly qualified to BE President but would serve as a calming influence for the nation. Sure the wingnuts will never be satisfied, but the middle 60% have no one in this election to vote for.

    Looking at you, Governor Romney.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  76. > Those guys standing out in front of Walmart to get signature- they don’t do that for free.

    There’s no reason committed volunteers couldn’t do that.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  77. The Tea Party has supported several candidates who have won local, state, and national office. Cruz was a Tea Party candidate and he was a formidable Presidential candidate who correctly iddntified the populist, outsider mood of the electorate, but he wasn’t able to seal the deal with the media pushing Trump 24/7.

    Now that Trump is the nominee, only Fox, Drudge, Breitbart, his faithful pundits, and GOPe politicians will be on Trump’s side. Trump will have to be even more vulgar and inflammatory to get attention, but that won’t work with any but his most fervent supporters.

    Ultimately, I think it was religion that sunk Cruz’s campaign. The Southern religious voters didn’t support him, preferring Trump’s vulgar machismo, while the growing secular public fears and hates Cruz — because hating Christians is a safe agenda in dangerous times. If so, then there is no regret. Being true to your religious beliefs is never cause for regret.

    DRJ (76a58a)

  78. What do his supporters talk about? Riots and destruction as part of their support for Trump.

    Don’t you dare. You pipsqueak you. There ain’t nobody on the Trump side talking about burning the thing down. That’s always been the Cruz coalition saying they aren’t going to participate, all that rot and garbage.

    Talk of revolutions is for losers. For 100 % clarity, sore losers.

    But it’s cathartic to have you say these things, if only because as you opine on doing the dirty, it becomes less likely you would actually do those things.

    cause the eyes of the Trumpets are upon you.
    If you do the dirty we will see.
    Before you burn it down look behind you,
    cause that’s where the Donald’s gonna be.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  79. No, this Christmas he would only be President-elect, assuming he wins the election. Obama’s still President until January, 2017

    i stand corrected!

    happyfeet (831175)

  80. It will be interesting to see how close to the election we will get with the Trumpers still convinced he’s going to win.

    Gerald A (945582)

  81. aphrael, dissident is not the same as infiltrator. You can be the Hamilton to Patterico’s Jefferson. The reason I’m not joining is because DRJ is not.

    nk (dbc370)

  82. There’s always Canada. Klondike

    lol

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  83. Better hurry though, cause Trump might build a wall.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  84. Heh! Let’s see how many of the Trumpkins stick when Trump starts asking for money. Thirty million is one thing and a billion is another.

    nk (dbc370)

  85. Donald Trump warned his supporters would riot if he didn’t win. We believed him, papertiger. Why don’t you believe your guy?

    DRJ (76a58a)

  86. Papertiger,

    You are a pathetic coward.

    There ain’t nobody on the Trump side talking about burning the thing down.

    Except Trump and his supporters have indeed spoken about doing exactly that. As recently as this thread, a couple of comments before the comment you’re whining about.

    But it’s cathartic to have you say these things, if only because as you opine on doing the dirty, it becomes less likely you would actually do those things.

    Say what things? Criticize Trump for talking about riots? What are you lying about today?

    Trump is behind by double digits. I will join with the vast majority of Americans in voting against him. I am indeed afraid of what Trump would do with power, but the best way to fight this is in on the soap box and then the ballot box.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  87. After hearing Cruz’ comments yesterday morning about Shorty, there is simply no way he’ll be holding hands with and singing Kumbaya. It was a withering attack and very perceptive. After hearing it, how could anyone vote for Shorty?

    The “othering” the Republican elite has used over the years to get us to vote for their milquetoasts simply doesn’t work with Shorty. At least with Romney the lesser of two evils argument made sense. It makes no sense now. And, besides, I have no reason to think Trump supporters would be voting for Ted is roles were reversed, so why would I ever vote for Shorty?

    An alternative is needed.

    ThOR (df0186)

  88. An organization already exists that is working to preserve our republic.

    http://www.centerforselfgovernance.com

    Check them out. They have training classes for getting bad representatives to do the right thing.

    Tennessee is now red instead of blue thanks to these folks. We are working on it here in Arizona.

    More power too you on preserving our rights!

    Doug Smith (9e30ee)

  89. > It will be interesting to see how close to the election we will get with the Trumpers still convinced he’s going to win.

    LOL.

    It was pretty clear in 2012 that the polls were showing an Obama victory, yet a large number of people *here* were convinced that Romney was going to win, or at least affected to be so.

    Political delusions don’t appear to be limited to one tribe or another.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  90. There’s no reason committed volunteers couldn’t do that.

    During the 1992 Perot registration drive, I was one of those volunteers.

    But it turns out that, at least in California, petitioning is a truly stupid method. Plan A is registration cards; you need 45,000 which are pretty much accepted as valid. Plan B is a petition, you need 750,000 signatures and these need to be vetted against registrations which takes considerable time. No one uses Plan B.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  91. Kevin M – yeah, for party registration, petitioning is a bad method. But volunteers gathering signatures for initiatives, rather than paid employees, could work … if people were motivated enough.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  92. The Tea Party has supported several candidates who have won local, state, and national office.

    Which Tea Party is this you speak of? The Tea Party slate* mailer? The Tea Party Express which really only exists to raise funds)? The bogus Tea Party designations that hucksters used on ballot lines? There IS no “Tea Party” as yet.

    ————
    * paid endorsement

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  93. I think you’re already doing it Patterico and have been for some time. I appreciate the fact that you want to continue. I would say, however, that the forces pulling us apart are unlikely to be overcome until external forces waken the nation from our narcissistic slumber.

    crazy (cde091)

  94. One way to imagine what the U. S. would be like under Trump is to replace the words “National Enquirer” with “Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Defense, Internal Revenue Service, and Department of Justice”. What’s been visited on the Cruz family could be coming to your neighborhood real soon, comrade.

    BobStewartatHome (404986)

  95. It was pretty clear in 2012 that the polls were showing an Obama victory, yet a large number of people *here* were convinced that Romney was going to win, or at least affected to be so.

    Yeah, that’s the truth. I got to where I was wishcasting Romney to win, even after telling people he would be crushed. Then the polling seemed to suggest he had a chance and I bought it.

    But at the end of the day, Obama believed in something, and Romney did not. These guys, like Kasich, who are up there on that stage just because they want to be president, instead of up there because they feel the need to improve this country… I just don’t respect them. And they usually lose.

    Trump is a great example. I have upset a few here by noting I prefer Hillary and they intend to vote for Trump because they can’t stand Hillary. How much does it upset them that Trump actually donated generously to Hillary’s presidential campaign in 2008? Every time Trump bashes Hillary, the question will be ‘why did you support her being president then?’ The answer is that Trump believes in nothing, and that’s one reason he’ll lose.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  96. Kevin M – yeah, for party registration, petitioning is a bad method. But volunteers gathering signatures for initiatives, rather than paid employees, could work … if people were motivated enough.

    This has worked at times. If it is popular enough, this can be done. CA’s Prop 13 for example. I expect that 1994’s Prop 187 (cutting off services to illegals) and the recent Prop 8 (anti-SSM) were mainly volunteer efforts.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  97. I replied to your email; however, before we bail or do something really stupid and allow the kleptocrat to take office we need to see the folks DT brings forth to help run the country; keep the faith and Comey will save the day.

    blackjack (5518a5)

  98. As you know, Kevin, he Tea Party began as a movement to rein in government spending and reduce the debt. Many people and some politicians identified with those goals and wllingly associated themselves with that movement. You don’t have to have a membership card to share those goals.

    DRJ (76a58a)

  99. It was pretty clear in 2012 that the polls were showing an Obama victory, yet a large number of people *here* were convinced that Romney was going to win, or at least affected to be so.

    Bollocks.

    Up until a week before the election, Romney was leading in almost all polls by 2-4%. Then New York and New Jersey were hit by a hurricane and there was an effective news blackout (except for Obama-dealing-with-hurricane-to-governor’s-hugs)and on election day the polls were tied.

    Only one pollster was calling it for Obama before the election, and that was the NY Time’s Nate Silver. Gallup, Rasmussen, NBC, WSJ, CBS, etc all had it slightly for Romney before the storm. Little actual polling was done thereafter.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  100. In a Democracy, you can’t win when the majority is made up of moochers, statists, totalitarians, racism/sexism/Islamophobia-obsessed paranoid weirdos, faggot worshipers and infant murderers. We’re in Germany, it’s the late 1930s/early 1940s and we are f&%ked. Time to shop for another country to live in.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  101. chris christie helped kneecap poor hapless mitt-mitt

    ouch!

    but mitt was super-sweet about

    happyfeet (831175)

  102. it

    happyfeet (831175)

  103. well you ignore the little fact of the administration with it’s boot on the neck of true the vote, through the irs, the doj and osha,

    narciso (732bc0)

  104. DRJ here is the context of that NYT mischaracterization of Trumps words.

    He had just been forced to cancel an event in Chicago because of Democrat rioters.

    You remember that right?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/12/us/trump-rally-in-chicago-canceled-after-violent-scuffles.html

    I know you do. Even if you loath to admit it.

    And in that potentially riotous situation what extraordinary steps did Donald Trump take to preserve the peace?

    Take a minute. It will come to you.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  105. Kevin, that’s right, the polls were showing Romney ahead.

    But a lot of that is because of how polls determine who is likely to vote.

    The election was lost the second they kicked Newt and Perry off the ballots in Virginia so the guy no one wanted would get those delegates, fixing things so the establishment guy would be nominated. Courts called it unconstitutional.

    We could have won that election.

    It’s even worse this year. Hillary is a profoundly weak candidate, and the GOP had some great choices. But the GOP (with a lot of help from democrats, the media, and nuts) picked the only guy who supported Hillary’s presidential aspirations and has no chance of beating her.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  106. As far as polling in 2012, Nate Silver, gloating a bit, reviewed all the polls and found them almost all skewed to the GOP side of what happened.
    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/?_r=0

    If that’s behind a paywall for you, there’s an table here:
    ttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/11/10/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-1110-accuracy2012-1/fivethirtyeight-1110-accuracy2012-1-blog480.png

    Also, here is Rasmussen’s final page on the election:
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/election_2012

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  107. Dustin, I’ve been swimming against the tide, brushing off the daily insults for almost a year now.

    What have you been doing, braveheart?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  108. chris christie helped kneecap poor hapless mitt-mitt

    And now donut-breath is on track to be VP under Trump.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  109. Narciso – the thing which terrifies me the most about this election cycle is the following scenario:

    (a) Sen. Clinton gets the nomination.
    (b) in September or October, after it is too late to change the ballots, she is indicted.
    (c) Trump wins.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  110. papertiger, do you get some kind of enjoyment from twisting the truth? Is this that ‘fighting dirty’ thing you Trump guys say you admire in Trump?

    You are lying. DRJ gave you proof that Trump warned of millions of Trump supporters rioting if the GOP convention did not give him the nomination. You claim this had something to do with democrats protesting him, and this is simply complete BS. It is true that Trump encouraged violence against those protestors, and promised to support a guy who sucker punched a nonviolent protestor. But that is not context. That’s a totally separate issue.

    Trump threatened the Republican party with millions of rioters.

    The problem with lying all the time is that no one believes anything you say anymore. Much like with Trump, who has flip flopped on most of his political views and smeared anyone who got in his way. Of course there’s nothing he can say now that will improve his standing with the vast majority of American voters. He is a liar, like you.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  111. “nk, at 26: I’ve been considering, all morning, whether *I* would be an infiltrator. I disagree with our proprietor on most major issues of policy, after all; but a rallying cry for people who object to shadow government were bureaucrats act as lawmaker, judge, jury, and executioner – and for people who want our rights to be respected and not subject to suspension on a whim … that’s a ralying cry which is hard to resist.”

    – aphrael

    Me too, for a lot of the same reasons. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that it’s not about policy preferences anymore.

    We are on the verge of a civil rights crisis. They say that the power of the Executive only ever expands. Bush learned that calling someone a “terrorist” allowed you to sidestep that person’s rights. Obama took that to its logical conclusion, and has set the precedent for the extra-judicial killing of US citizens. Whether the next president is Clinton or Trump, the power of the Executive to unilaterally kill American citizens without due process of law will be utilized more openly and more often – and with great relish, if the next president is Trump.

    I am more conservative than I used to be, though not nearly as conservative as most of the people here. I am not an originalist, or a textualist. But I absolutely, firmly believe that the Framers intended the Constitution to serve as an effective check on the danger that we are facing now – not only a Trump or a Clinton as an Executive Executioner, but the mob behind them, following a Dear Leader’s example and implementing their oppressive and unconstitutional policy preferences at a grass-roots level.

    As depressing as all of this is, I still believe in the power of families/clans/small groups/communities to resist big institutions – including the State. But the members have to be able to engage in effective discourse amongst themselves. This site has been one of those forums for a long time. Whether it can continue to serve that purpose effectively – particularly in a Trump administration – is an open question. I sense that Patterico is trying to create a new forum that can carry on this forum’s legacy in a more organized, low-profile way. Also depressing, but I firmly believe that the “low profile” component of dissent is going to become increasingly important in the coming years, regardless of whether Trump or Clinton is the next president.

    Make no mistake: anyone treating Hillary Clinton as an inevitability, or writing off the possibility of a Trump presidency, is blind. People vastly underestimated the malicious and vengeful stupidity of Republican primary voters, and the result was a Trump nomination. I am not going to underestimate the malicious and vengeful stupidity of general election voters. Hillary Clinton has a firm legacy of losing important elections to under-qualified demagogues, despite common agreement that her victory was inevitable. A Trump presidency is most definitely a possibility. That is a horrifying thing.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  112. no need to worry, they’ll pull a torricelli, but wait that’s not in the rules, snorfle,@rachel lucas,

    narciso (732bc0)

  113. > chris christie helped kneecap poor hapless mitt-mitt

    *In that moment*, Chris Christie did the job the voters of his state elected him to do – he cozied up to the federal government to help get federal aid for his state after a massive disaster.

    I am not, and have never been, a Christie fan. But I respect him a lot for that decision.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  114. Dustin, I’ve been swimming against the tide, brushing off the daily insults for almost a year now.

    What have you been doing, braveheart?

    papertiger (c2d6da) — 5/4/2016 @ 11:35 am

    Daily insults for almost a year now? Does anyone else remember me insulting papertiger?

    Please, link me the last time I ever even addressed you, liar.

    Can you find more than three threads in the last year where I did? I doubt it.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  115. papertiger 103,

    He threatened riots in return? Is that part of his eye-for-an-eye theory of life and politics?

    DRJ (76a58a)

  116. christie doesn’t have a super-great story to tell with respect to recovery from the sandy sandy

    no more than new york does

    happyfeet (831175)

  117. > Also depressing, but I firmly believe that the “low profile” component of dissent is going to become increasingly important in the coming years, regardless of whether Trump or Clinton is the next president.

    The fact that we live in a world where a man I respect can say that and not immediately strike me as insane is depressing.

    > anyone treating Hillary Clinton as an inevitability, or writing off the possibility of a Trump presidency, is blind.

    Agreed.

    > A Trump presidency is most definitely a possibility. That is a horrifying thing.

    Amen.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  118. Hillary Clinton has a firm legacy of losing important elections to under-qualified demagogues, despite common agreement that her victory was inevitable. A Trump presidency is most definitely a possibility. That is a horrifying thing.

    Leviticus (efada1) — 5/4/2016 @ 11:40 am

    You make a good point. Sobering.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  119. Happyfeet – yeah, the follow-through hasn’t been great. NYC, and Hoboken, have done a much better job, from what I can tell, than the shore has.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  120. I didn’t realize part of a governor’s job is to literally cozy up to federal officials, aphrael.

    DRJ (76a58a)

  121. It was pretty clear in 2012 that the polls were showing an Obama victory, yet a large number of people *here* were convinced that Romney was going to win, or at least affected to be so.

    Political delusions don’t appear to be limited to one tribe or another.

    aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/4/2016 @ 11:04 am

    There were some Gallup polls about two weeks out from the election that showed Romney ahead outside the margin of error. There were a number of polls that showed it close fairly late. There’s reason to believe that the hurricane contributed to a late Obama surge.

    Gerald A (945582)

  122. for ny i’m thinking staten island in particular still has a lot of legitimate grievances

    but also the rockaways

    happyfeet (831175)

  123. DRJ – as I interpret the governor’s job, in an emergency like that, his job is to do whatever he can *legally* do to help the people of his state deal with the crisis.

    If that means cozy up to the feds, it means cozy up to the feds.

    It’s one thing to object to the system which makes that necessary; but in the time of emergency, you deal with the emergency, and then work to reform the system after the emergency has passed.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  124. to literally cozy up to federal officials

    poor word choice maybe but i think he went beyond what was necessary (or necessarily dignified) and gratuitously inserted himself into the election

    and i’d submit that that’s in keeping with what we know of him

    happyfeet (831175)

  125. Hurricane Sandy was October 22-November 2, 2012. Here are the Romney-Obama polls. It looks to me like Obama was leading in September but the race was a dead heat by mid-October.

    DRJ (76a58a)

  126. It was pretty clear in 2012 that the polls were showing an Obama victory, yet a large number of people *here* were convinced that Romney was going to win, or at least affected to be so.

    Political delusions don’t appear to be limited to one tribe or another.

    aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/4/2016 @ 11:04 am

    From a poll published 10/29/12

    Gallup: Romney extends lead over Obama to 5 points

    Gerald A (945582)

  127. you can’t have too many legos

    this is what Mr. Trump understands

    pee-stank wants to take away your legos

    and your star wars

    but together we can stop her

    happyfeet (831175)

  128. So not only hugging but maybe more? That reminds me of the old joke re: whether prostitutes or politicians are the oldest profession.

    DRJ (76a58a)

  129. I am not, and have never been, a Christie fan. But I respect him a lot for that decision.

    I do not. He turned the election, and all he had to do was refuse and charge that Obama had conditioned aid for NJ on Christie “kissing the ring”, and Obama would have been toast.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  130. unilaterally kill American citizens without due process of law will be utilized more openly and more often – and with great relish, if the next president is Trump

    You go to great lengths to absolve Hillary of ill intentions. Her email shenanigans show how little regard she has for national security and by extension American lives. She has already demonstrated the lengths she is willing to go in order to avoid accountability.
    You seem a little too quick to hold her up as the lesser of two evils.
    Hillary understands better than Trump how to abuse those powers and she covets the opportunity – Trump will need some time to learn and at this point it is only your opinion he would abuse the powers.

    He may turn out to be as bad if not worse as you predict but you protect Hillary with the same fervor that you attribute to the Trump supporters. The slack jawed Obama apologists allowed him to march on through with his trampling of the constitution for 8 years with no word – where they used to attribute Bush as evil and corrupt the same people stood by and said nothing until now when it appears Trump might actually win the election. IRS, ATF and DOJ all treated people differently based on politics but that was perfectly fine with you and others.

    Clever approach to draw disaffected GOP members to support your choice though. You will get more than a few takers I’m sure.

    spokanebob (6797b5)

  131. Gerald,

    See the chart in #106. Gallup was an outlier at the end, but a week before most all polls had Romney up by 3 or 4%. Only after the storm did the numbers come down.

    Since Gallup and Rasmussen used rolling averages and had a discontinuity in their data they tended to be more towards Romney. That last week was critical.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  132. I despise Hillary, but do not doubt that she will be more constrained by an appearance of decency than Trump who, when claiming his opponent’s father was a guy in a grainy photo standing with Oswald, reach such a nadir that Joe McCarthy would have been shocked.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  133. I find it heartening that none of you are falling for the “at least he’s not as bad as Hillary” that I have see in other places online. I think we are now faced with the “lesser of two demons”, and I think Hillary is the lesser one. She is not going to start a trade war with China, and she won’t stumble into a hot war (she might start a war out of political calculation, of course). And she doesn’t think serial bankruptcy is a standard way of doing business. Between the calculating liar and the bloviating blowhard, I will pick the liar. (Although I will probably vote LP again when November rolls around. I don’t think there isva chance of any independent to make a feasible run, unless he/she co-opts an existing third party). There is also this: it will be easier to organize against Hillary than Trump when you are in opposition.

    But I think you all need to understand that you helped Trump get to where he is. You (metaphorically) yelled about border security and illegal immigration as if it was the most important thing. You (again metaphorically) yelled about the threat of jihadism as if it were the most important thing. You complained of how Obama was making the US weak in foreign affairs. And Low Info Voters heard your clamor. But not your complaints about too big government. Then Trump arrived in town with his patent snake oil Guaranteed To Solve Border Security, Illegals, Jihadis, American Weakness, and Sexual Impotence With Only One Dose a Day…and the LIVs believed him.

    Side note: I apologize for my very rude manners the last time I was here. The real reason I left was that I felt losing my temper on a regular basis was of benefit to no one, especially myself.

    kishnevi (28fa9f)

  134. “Clever approach to draw disaffected GOP members to support your choice though. You will get more than a few takers I’m sure.”

    – spokanebob

    How anyone looks at what I wrote and sees it as support for Hillary Clinton, I do not know. I do believe that Hillary Clinton is the lesser of two evils, but I rejected that false paradigm years ago.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  135. Obama was helped by hurricanes, IRS fraud, Candy Crowly, and a Secretary of State, whose name escapes me, pushing a video as cause of embassies being ransacked, ambassador’s murdered. All sorts of things. Not the least of which was Romney’s debate performance.

    That won’t happen to Trump. I’m convince if a hurricane hits New Jersey, the Donald will find a way to turn it to his advantage.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  136. I find it heartening that none of you are falling for the “at least he’s not as bad as Hillary” that I have see in other places online.

    i’m TOTALLY falling for it I’m not gonna get pee-stanked all over for four years

    that’s number one unsanitary and number two it’s an affront to my dignity as an american citizen of america

    happyfeet (831175)

  137. To me Trump vs Hillary represents existential danger vs temporary damage. Would you prefer to be shot in your head or your leg? That kind of unhappy choice.

    I would prefer the hope of another outcome.

    Perhaps it is time to gather up the mobile homes and head off to Cleveland. Trump threatened riots, well, how about the Last Ride of the Tea Party?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  138. “I’m convince if a hurricane hits New Jersey, the Donald will find a way to turn it to his advantage.”

    – paper tiger

    Like declaring a state of emergency and declaring martial law, no doubt.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  139. Kishnevi,

    I gotta say I still think immigration and the threat from Islamofascism are real problems.

    The size of government is another, but illegal immigration is a mechanism that leads to a new political reality for democrats, and ends all chance of reforming the government’s largess.

    One of many reasons Trump is the worst candidate we could pick.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  140. I just joined. I would like to address happyfeet and the rest of the trumpets. I have voted for every Republican running for President since I screwed up my first election as an 18 year old in 1976 and voted for Carter. I held my nose and voted for McCain. Hell, I even voted for Todd Aiken. I detest Trump and I would crawl over broken glass to vote against Hillary. Every time I have wavered a little and thought maybe I could vote for Trump I see one of your ignorant fellow trumpets taunting those of us who see through the fraud that is Trump. Then we have the Oswald thing yesterday. On the very day he was going to pretty much wrap up the nomination he reinforces what a liar he really is. I have had enough. I cannot vote for the lying fraud Trump and look myself in the mirror. I will not vote for Hillary but in all honesty I don’t know she would be that much worse. While you are gloating and insulting those who don’t support lying Donald why don’t you look up how many votes Lying Donald actually received compared to the total number of Republican voters. Good luck with all those new Republican voters Lying Donald will bring out in November. It better be a lot to offset the loss of voters like me. I don’t care what your snappy reply will be. I don’t care what people that I don’t respect think about me. So if you think your reply will bother me in the least you really are as ignorant as I believe you to be.

    Bandit (589b8c)

  141. santayana, was wrong, no one learns a redacted thing,

    narciso (732bc0)

  142. Agree with those who are saying that holding onto Congress needs to be the ultimate priority. Regardless of who ends up as President, there needs to be at least a partial check on them. Also, backing organizations who are ready to fight instances of executive overreach in the courts regardless of who initiates them is a vital task for 2017 and onward.

    M. Scott Eiland (b97d1e)

  143. > I do believe that Hillary Clinton is the lesser of two evils, but I rejected that false paradigm years ago.

    In this case, I would argue that Mr. Trump is *such a serious threat* that even voting for Sen. Clinton would be justified, if doing so reduced the risk of his threat.

    I live in California. My presidential vote won’t matter anyway.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  144. as the majority of Republicans “rally around” an obvious con man who would be the ruin of limited government and constitutionalism.

    As they did in 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012?

    Bottom line is these people make their money at the trough. To expect them to want/push/accept anyone other than a Big Gubmint RINO is folly.

    Best way to get smaller Govt requires doing bad things cuz you’ll never get it via the ballot box.

    Rodney King's Spirit (db6706)

  145. I think we are now faced with the “lesser of two demons”, and I think Hillary is the lesser one.

    I’ve noticed that a variety of people who do make that claim have in the past struck me as being rather squishy or left-leaning in certain ways.

    My sense is a person who truly is instinctively of the right will either claim that Trump and Hillary are equally bad or — beyond the name of any person used as a comparison point framed against Bill’s wife — be so turned off by Hillary, that her name won’t ever come up unless it’s to excoriate or denounce her.

    Mark (7cb211)

  146. Like declaring a state of emergency and declaring martial law, no doubt.

    “Yesterday, while I was with my wife, doing what men do with their gorgeous wives, crazed revolutionaries struck at the US Capitol, burning it do the ground and killing many Congressmen and Senators.

    Sadly, I am forced to declare martial law until the Congress can be reconstructed. I have ordered the NSA, FBI and other agencies to identify the perpetrators who all appear to be from the outlawed Constitution First! underground, along with Muslims, Mexicans and Canadian infiltrators.

    Our troops in Sonora and Baja have been put on the alert for terrorist attacks, and 10-to-1 reprisals have been authorized in that event.

    Thank you and be sure to buy my podcast.”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  147. kishnevi (28fa9f) — 5/4/2016 @ 12:05 pm

    Your point eludes me. Is your idea to only talk about big government and nothing else?

    Gerald A (945582)

  148. papertiger,

    Does wanting to punch protesters in the face count as endorsing violence? I think so and Trump did that, too.

    DRJ (76a58a)

  149. I’m convince if a hurricane hits New Jersey, the Donald will find a way to turn it to his advantage.

    papertiger (c2d6da) —

    It’s hard to understand what you’re saying sometimes, because you seem to get really excited and then post your stream of consciousness, free of the restrictions of grammar. You’re also very vague with the grandiose predictions of Trump’s glory.

    You’re saying the Donald is more like Obama, here, right? If so, you are wrong again. Obama didn’t spin the hurricane. The media did. Obama was merely their guy. Trump was the media’s guy during the primary because they want to help Hillary and they want the ratings, but listen carefully to this secret:

    The media want to help the democrat win.

    Therefore Trump is going to be clobbered. Therefore you can’t explain how Trump would be able to spin a weather story. The hurricane will be coverage of every nasty thing he has done, every person he has cheated, and every time he has failed in business, marriage, and life.

    BTW, in your previous comment, you said you were brave because you faced insults on the internet. Maybe to Trump, who fights on twitter, this is badass, but if you wanted to show your bravery, this world is full of wars, and this country full of streets, requiring men and women to take real risks. I am not impressed with you for being nasty to people you disagree with on the internet, particularly when you lie to troll. Perhaps if you had experienced some of these things in your life you would have more honor, and not lie for some pathetic politician for a year and see this as a credential. Internet forums are entertainment, not political activism. Go take your Trump hat to Harlem and let’s see how brave you are.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  150. red queen would much more likely to do so, like the state of emergency, hollande imposed, which failed to stop an uprising in the paris metro,

    narciso (732bc0)

  151. Or he might tweet a notice of martial law, with instructions to buy the podcast for all the detsils.

    DRJ (76a58a)

  152. look Mr. Bandit if people wanna get pee-stanked on

    i’m not losing any sleep over it

    but i’ll stand with the people who stand with Mr. Trump

    why?

    the failmerican white house is a sleaze magnet

    the failmerican president is a low class cowardly and very likely murderous p.o.s. by definition

    class intelligence and morality have absolutely nothing to do with that job

    all i ask is we not elect a nasty pee-stanky geriatric criminal

    and i’m asking nicely

    happyfeet (831175)

  153. distinction without a difference in new orleans bush was responsible even though blanco and nagin were guilty, with sandy, the democrats are still not responsible, because stay puft was a basenghi,

    narciso (732bc0)

  154. My sense is a person who truly is instinctively of the right will either claim that Trump and Hillary are equally bad or — beyond the name of any person used as a comparison point framed against Bill’s wife — be so turned off by Hillary, that her name won’t ever come up unless it’s to excoriate or denounce her.

    Mark (7cb211) — 5/4/2016 @ 12:15 pm

    You say this same thing a lot. Can you explain how Trump and Hillary are equally bad? I pointed out that Hillary has never been as nasty to her opponent as Trump. Trump smeared Cruz’s wife and father. Trump called for riots and violence. Can you at least try to argue how Hillary is Trump’s equal on this decency front? To me, it sounds like you realize Hillary is much better than Trump, but you must oppose the boogeyman democrat anyway, so you wave your hands about how, deep in the heart of folks like myself, lies a ‘leftist’, and so you do not have to actually win the argument.

    I also don’t really understand your calling her ‘bill’s wife’. It seems out of place. Bill Clinton was nowhere near as sleazy as Trump. Does anyone seriously argue otherwise?

    Remember, Mark, you were chanting about closet liberals before someone patiently explained to you what the word ‘liberal’ means. Instead of psychoanalyzing everyone who has a different conclusion of you, assuming they are wrong before you even understand them, we should talk about what you think ‘leftist’ and ‘conservative’ really are.

    Trump is not in any sense a conservative.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  155. I would argue that Mr. Trump is *such a serious threat* that even voting for Sen. Clinton would be justified,

    I have a hunch that since you’re a liberal, your arm doesn’t exactly have to be twisted too much for you to come to that conclusion.

    Mark (7cb211)

  156. @ Bandit (#141): Concise & heartfelt. Bravo.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  157. Mark@146
    Point taken.
    But I think she at least knows what she wants and how to be President. I think Trump lacks even that.
    And as I said, I think conservatives will be able to organize against her more easily and earlier (meaning the first Wednesday in November) than against Trump.
    You’ll notice I plan on voting LP. I would have voted for any of the other GOP candidates if they had managed to be nominated.
    To me Trump vs Hillary represents existential danger vs temporary damage. Would you prefer to be shot in your head or your leg? That kind of unhappy choice.

    Exactly.

    kishnevi (28fa9f)

  158. If I was running this website, happyfeet would get the Annie Wilkes treatment.

    L.N. Smithee (b84cf6)

  159. I live in California. My presidential vote won’t matter anyway.

    Don’t be so sure. The Democrat Party has misruled California for a decade now (two decades if you just look at the legislature) despite great popular objections. The CA GOP is internally rent, playing 3rd-party dominance and ego games unrelated to public desires. Trump has a knack for finding discontent and using it to his advantage.

    A few things unaddressed:

    * traffic (the Dems are putting ALL the transportation money into Jerry Brown;s choo-choo)
    * illegal immigration (the Dems have allowed driver’s licenses, admission to the bar, subsidized Obamacare and many services to illegals while refusing to co-operate with federal authorities in a state that is way too crowded)
    * water (not only are they taking water sources out of service, but they are refusing to create more storage or production. A good portion of the once-fertile Central Valley is turning into dust bowl).
    * guns (more and more regulations, to the point that a legal weapon is a useless weapon.)
    * infill development (the state is allowing development of large high-density apartments in what were single-family neighborhoods, and preempting local control of building. Emphasis on economic and racial mixing goals)
    * beyond SSM (not satisfied with imposing SSM against the expressed will of the voters, boundaries are being pushed on “affirmative consent” and transsexual rights. A bridge too far)

    There are lots of things that an astute demagogue can use as wedges, especially against someone like Hillary. I am not complacent with respect to Trump losing any state. I think he will lose catastrophically, but then I thought he’d be out of the GOP race last December.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  160. Didn’t you guys hear Ted Cruz’s concession statement:

    “From the beginning, I’ve said that I would continue on as long as there was a viable path to victory,” Cruz said. “Tonight, I’m sorry to say, it appears that path has been foreclosed. Together, we left it all on the field in Indiana. We gave it everything we’ve got. But the voters chose another path. And so with a heavy heart, but with boundless optimism for the long-term future of our nation, we are suspending our campaign.

    ropelight (ae1ce7)

  161. now that’s an oogie mess

    happyfeet (831175)

  162. I think both are potential existential threats,
    the main question, as a repeat of ‘8 and ’12,
    do we think Trump SCOTUS picks would be any better than HRC’s

    I am sure some strategies are better than others,
    and write me off if you want,
    we’re talking intervention beyond human control
    be it the equivalent of Lee’s plans at Antietam being found by the union, Russian winters,
    Or the fire of God on Mt. Carmel,
    IDK

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  163. From National Review‘s Kevin D. Williamson:

    I want to leave a note here, because I expect to have many occasions to link back to it in the next several months.

    Americans and Republicans, remember: You asked for this. Given the choice between a dozen solid conservatives and one Clinton-supporting con artist and game-show host, you chose the con artist. You chose him freely. Nobody made you do it.

    I will be reminding you all of that, from time to time.

    Ditto.

    L.N. Smithee (b84cf6)

  164. I have a hunch that since you’re a liberal, your arm doesn’t exactly have to be twisted too much for you to come to that conclusion.

    Mark (7cb211)

    Mark, this is identical in thought to your last comment. What’s your basis for the claim? You seem to be saying you do not have a basis, and this is your ‘hunch’.

    What specific accomplishments and values of Trumps define this conservatism in your heart? What about my opposition to Trump defines this closet leftism I wasn’t aware of? I’ve never voted for a democrat presidential candidate before, but I have many friends who are democrats and do not see them as subhuman or mentally ill the way you sometimes seem to. Perhaps if you articulated yourself better I would understand your thoughts a little better.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  165. We had an impressive bench to choose from…Jindal, Walker, Perry, Fiorina, and of course Rubio and Cruz.

    and, had any of them come right out, as Trump did, and say “Enough” on illegal and un-vetted immigration, they would be the nominee right now.

    but none of them did: they all toed the GOPe party line, and, for that they lost to the candidate that didn’t.
    the GOPe has only itself to blame for having Trump as their candidate.

    redc1c4 (018028)

  166. Your point eludes me. Is your idea to only talk about big government and nothing else?

    Not quite. I think it needs to be yelled about more often.
    But if you yell about immigration and jihadis, and merely complain about big government, don’t be surprised if people only pay attention to the first two. Especially when the solutions you offer help shore up big government.

    kishnevi (28fa9f)

  167. Did Kasich stay in just to prevent the Cruz / Trump 1:1???

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  168. Mark, at 156: *laugh*. You realize that I’m currently a registered Republican who intended to vote for Sen. Cruz in the CA primary becausee that was the best thing I could do short-term to decrease the risk of a President Trump, right?

    Given that I’m a liberal, deciding to vote for Sen. Cruz wasn’t an easy thing for me to do.

    I’d also note that I’ve voted for someone else every time I’ve had the opportunity to vote for Sen. Clinton.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  169. populism takes over the republican party trump wins. ayn randist free trade wealthy donors lose!

    populism wins (82dc1a)

  170. don’t let the door hit you on the way out free traders!

    populism wins (82dc1a)

  171. Dustin, at 265: in comment 156, Mark was quoting me, and responding to me. I think it’s fair to say that I’m a liberal, and so it’s a relevant criticism of me in theory, even if it wouldn’t be a relevant criticism of you.

    (Of course, given that I’m on the record as planning to vote for Sen. Cruz, it’s not a relevant criticism of me *in practice*, but that’s a different matter).

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  172. Go take your Trump hat to Harlem and let’s see how brave you are.

    Even Van Nuys would be dicey.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  173. Did Kasich stay in just to prevent the Cruz / Trump 1:1???

    You are getting this just now?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  174. Kevin, at 160: I’m certainly going to vote, and (among other things) I’ll probably be voting against Lt. Gov Newsom’s gun control measure, for marijuana legalization, and against AG Harris.

    And at the same time, I cannot imagine Mr. Trump carrying the state.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  175. Clean up on aisle 170 & 171

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  176. As for infill development – both LA and the Bay Area have *massively* overpriced housing. More development is the only way to handle that – and if that means infill development, so be it.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  177. And at the same time, I cannot imagine Mr. Trump carrying the state.

    that’s funny, because i can… the wide demographic of random people i run into who self-identify as Trump supporters here in my part of #Failifornia is impressive. how deep it is, i can’t tell you, but since i live in one of the bluest parts of Lost Angels, which is all blue, all the time, it’s interesting, because such people would be expected to be rarer than hen’s teeth.

    redc1c4 (018028)

  178. Even Van Nuys would be dicey.

    you might be surprised…
    depending on which part of Van Nuys you’re in, of course.

    redc1c4 (018028)

  179. Mr. red is right

    plus also there’s a very clear distinction to be made between Mr. Trump, Ted, and pee-stank

    Ted was very backwards-looking

    he wanted to do Reagan on America… he fancied that so cons were like super important partners whose weirdo issues should be foregrounded and pandered to like how poor Reagan did on them

    and sweetie the 80s ain’t coming back

    Pee-stank is also very very backwards-looking

    she is not the future

    she just wants to go back to when she and her nasty low-class criminal cartel held the levers of power

    but sweetie the 90s ain’t coming back

    Mr. Trump is looking ahead though!

    he sees where we’re stuck and he’s not afraid to point to the elephants in the room

    he’s gonna break some stuff i’m sure

    but we will face our trump

    we will permit trump to pass over us and through us

    and when trump has gone past we will turn the inner eye to see his path.

    Where the trump has gone there will be nothing.

    Only America will remain.

    happyfeet (831175)

  180. aphreal–

    I will probably vote against the NJ legalization, not because I want MJ to be illegal, but because I want it’s sale to be at least as regulated as alcohol.

    The current regime has no meaningful enforcement against underage sales or even a permit process for sale locations. I live near a college, and there are several “medical MJ” dispensaries nearby that have been repeatedly shut down for selling to minors, but they just spring right back up under a different name, same ownership.

    I will read the initiatives in detail, but I very much doubt there is much regulation at all.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  181. and if that means infill development, so be it.

    Putting 230 small apartments on ONE C-1 acre adjacent to single-family housing is pretty terrible if you live in one of those houses.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  182. Dustin, at 265: in comment 156, Mark was quoting me, and responding to me. I think it’s fair to say that I’m a liberal, and so it’s a relevant criticism of me in theory, even if it wouldn’t be a relevant criticism of you.

    (Of course, given that I’m on the record as planning to vote for Sen. Cruz, it’s not a relevant criticism of me *in practice*, but that’s a different matter).

    aphrael (e0cdc9

    I know. But it’s a rehash of the same comment that Mark has offered numerous times. I’d like to know what he thinks makes someone liberal or conservative, rather than just knowing he assumes everyone he disagrees with his a secret leftist and therefore can be ignored.

    Further, I don’t know why liberal is such a bad thing. I think we can get more detailed and insightful.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  183. I thought Kasich was truly in it to be the go-to guy on the 2nd ballot.

    MD in Philly (062f39)

  184. The Democrat Party has misruled California for a decade now (two decades if you just look at the legislature) despite great popular objections. The CA GOP is internally rent, playing 3rd-party dominance and ego games unrelated to public desires. Trump has a knack for finding discontent and using it to his advantage…

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/4/2016 @ 12:35 pm

    Trump doesn’t know jack about California if it has nothing to do with his businesses. He left a mess behind in Fresno when he and his hockey goon lawyer Michael Cohen rode into town promising to make the Central Valley a golfing mecca; all they had to do is agree to clear the way for him by using eminent domain to purchase a huge swath of land and redirect traffic so that it was the center of town.

    While most of the town’s pols (including Alan Autry, an ex-college jock and actor) sucked up to Trump shamelessly, a few brave souls stood up to Trump, and garnered residential opposition to the control he demanded via Cohen.

    From December 2007:

    Mayor Alan Autry doesn’t have the City Council votes he needs to seize property for Donald Trump’s planned golf course in southwest Fresno — eliminating a key reason for city involvement in the Running Horse project.

    The city has a deal to help the developer by buying portions of the bankrupt golf course and luxury housing development — using, if necessary, its power of eminent domain to take property at fair-market value. Officials say such a step may be needed for at least one parcel.

    But three of seven City Council members say they would not support using eminent domain to complete Running Horse. Five votes would be needed.

    “This would make us the poster child for bad eminent-domain use,” said Council Member Brian Calhoun. “I don’t want to defend that kind of action. And all for Donald Trump? Hell no.”

    Without being given veto power over town business, Cohen & Co. folded up and took off for Manhattan.

    L.N. Smithee (b84cf6)

  185. “Mark was quoting me, and responding to me. I think it’s fair to say that I’m a liberal, and so it’s a relevant criticism of me in theory, even if it wouldn’t be a relevant criticism of you. (Of course, given that I’m on the record as planning to vote for Sen. Cruz, it’s not a relevant criticism of me *in practice*, but that’s a different matter).”

    – aphrael

    Political preference is an ontological question for Mark. The notion of anyone being anything “in practice” eludes him.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  186. The text of the initiative which is going to qualify is at:

    http://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0103%20%28Marijuana%29_1.pdf?

    Chapter 14, protection of minors:

    * prohibits sale to persons under 21 and even *presence on site* of any person under 21, except for those aged 18-21 who have valid medical cards

    * explicitly authorizes sting operations against licensees

    Chapter 3, enforcement, authorizes revocation of licenses and fines.

    Now, this isn’t to say that the licensing authority will actually do its job – but it seems to me that would be a fault of the bureaucracy, not of the law.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  187. If a new party forms, Make “no open primaries” part of its DNA. Absent open primaries, Trump would have been an afterthought, if that. I understand that primaries are a good time to bring new voters into the fold, but which voters is the q. Some you want, some you don’t.

    ras (468115)

  188. depending on which part of Van Nuys you’re in, of course.

    Perhaps. It is probably mostly legal (or now-legal) immigrants and second generation. Maybe Trump has an appeal, though I doubt it. I lived on Vanowen a long time ago. All the signs are in Spanish now.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  189. My first inkling that the GOP wasn’t what it purported to be came in the early 2000s. I remember having a conversation with my father shortly after the 2000 election that it was put up or shut up time for the party in regards to limited government. Events would show that the needle would point to “shut up”. Little by little over the past 15 years, as I’ve grown from a young man just out to college to a man nearing middle age, I’ve resigned myself to voting against Democrats rather than for Republicans, as it became ever more clear that the talk of liberty and the Constitution was little more than window dressing for the GOP. I voted for McCain, who I couldn’t stand, and Romney, who I respect but whose political beliefs were clearly closer to Bill Clinton’s than Ronald Reagan’s. Trump is the proverbial straw – that’s it, I’m out. I’ll still never vote for a Donk – my awakening to the hollow lies of the GOP doesn’t change the fact that the Democratic Party is repugnant on every level – but I’m not going through the motions of voting because “hey, the Dem is worse!” anymore. Bring on a new third party based on classical liberalism, federalism, and the Constitution – it’s time for a choice, not an echo, as Goldwater once said. Start locally, build a movement, and let national growth build organically.

    radar (14e3a6)

  190. I would say that the thing to do is to return to the traditional franchise, and restrict voting to white male property owners, but they are the ones who went most strongly for Donald Trump!

    The only answer is a revolution, which installs me as Tsar and Autocrat of All the Americas, at which time I would fix all of our problems:

    1 – Welfare would be ended, period, and people would be given the choice: work or starve.
    2 – Illegal immigration would be ended, as American citizens would have to work, displacing the immigrants who have come here to work.
    3 – All city, county, state and national programs, benefits, and what not would require presentation of a federally issued photographic identity card.
    4 – Freedom of religion would be restricted to Christians and Jews; Islam would be banned, and all Muslims, whether American citizens or not, would be deported to Antarctica. Catholicism would become the Official National Religion.
    5 – All taxes would be apportioned evenly, by head, and not by income.
    6 – Non-traditional family arrangements would not be prosecuted, but would not be recognized by the nation.
    7 – All members of the Supreme Court and lower judiciary would be removed and replaced by my appointees.

    Those seven things would solve all of our problems.

    The monarchist Dana (f6a568)

  191. ras wrote:

    If a new party forms, Make “no open primaries” part of its DNA.

    Primary election rules are normally set by state law, not by the parties.

    The realistic Dana (f6a568)

  192. Dana–

    This is what Lenin thought until Stalin poisoned him.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  193. King Dana 2020!

    I thought Kasich was truly in it to be the go-to guy on the 2nd ballot.

    MD in Philly (062f39) —

    That’s what I thought. I still suspect Trump will pick Webb as his running mate. Left field guess, I suppose.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  194. Primary election rules are normally set by state law, not by the parties.

    Not even true in California, where some parties have open primaries and some do not, at least for President.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  195. no, it’s was the aftermath of the attempt by fanya kaplan, anarchist social revolutionary, which is more what this quixotic exercise looks like,

    narciso (732bc0)

  196. what is to be done is the title of lenis books

    populism wins (82dc1a)

  197. And the Supreme Court has actually said that the states cannot *force* parties to accept candidates the parties don’t want to accept. The legislative rules regarding primaries can only stand with tacit acceptance from the parties, unless the states go the California route of removing parties from the general election entirely.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  198. So what would the GOP convention do if it was surrounded by the same million people the Teas sent to DC in 2010? Of course, as it stands, they will be surrounded by Dems. I wonder if a grand #notTrump coalition is possible?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  199. Populism wins, at 197:

    > what is to be done is the title of lenis books

    I think our host said that already:

    > Astute readers with a knowledge of history might recognize the title of this post as the title of a tract by Lenin published in 1902.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  200. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/4/hillary-clinton-whole-world-wants-me-beat-trump/

    She must have been looking at the comments at Ace, Hot Air and Patterico…..

    spokanebob (1aaf2a)

  201. Mr M wrote:

    To me Trump vs Hillary represents existential danger vs temporary damage. Would you prefer to be shot in your head or your leg? That kind of unhappy choice.

    The question on the playground at Mt Sterling Elementary School, back when I was in the third grade, was, “If you were standing up to your neck in [insert slang term for feces here] and someone threw a bucket of [insert slang term for urine here] at your head, would you duck? It matters not which of those two candidate is the [insert slang term for feces here] or the [insert slang term for urine here]; both are unacceptably bad, and to vote for Mrs Clinton as somehow being just a gunshot wound to the leg fails to recognize that many people have died from gunshot wounds to the leg.

    I will be voting third party. Yes, I realize that my vote would be wasted in terms of who actually wins, but every vote for a third party candidate that rises above the historical norms is an indication that the voter could not stand either major party nominee.

    The very realistic Dana (f6a568)

  202. spokanebob,

    I think Clinton was referring to foreign policy. Trump wants to start a trade war and insists he can force other countries to do what he wants. Other countries are probably afraid of the instability he would bring. A dumber Putin is not a good thing.

    But yeah, a lot of long time Republicans at the blogs you named as well as others are talking about their preference for Hillary over Trump.

    This should surprise no one. We were told to vote for Romney over Obama, even though we thought Romney was terrible. We went ahead and voted for the lesser of two evils, Romney. Now we’re going to do it again, and the lesser of two evils is Hillary.

    A lot of us were very upfront about this, and Trump fans have no one to blame but themselves for supporting a candidate that most people think wants to be a tyrant. Of course he’s going to lose.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  203. De-lurking just to post that I joined. I agree wholeheartedly with everything @ Bandit said. I also think that was another purpose for Patterico’s post: to encourage us lurkers to participate as well.

    P.S. Can someone get some psychological help for happyfeet? I think he believes he’s a Bene Gesserit and Trump is the Kwisatz Haderach.

    JJ (44672f)

  204. ras (468115) — 5/4/2016 @ 12:59 pm

    Absent open primaries, Trump would have been an afterthought, if that.

    Trump’s landslides on April 19 and 26 were in closed primary states (where the Republican Party was a small minority.)

    Maybe no delegates from states a party’s candidate for president does not win?

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  205. he could run in independent primary oh thats right partys don’t allow that.

    populism wins (82dc1a)

  206. Dustin,
    Whether it was Cruz or Trump I think both would lose to Hillary. Cruz may claim the high ground but his path top 270 is difficult to see.

    And of course no one in the blogosphere has their preference changed although many people try to sway them. I’m not so sure that “told to vote for Romney” is what the case was – Perry was my choice but he fell asleep and blew it. This time Cruz and Trump supporters were both up front – no vote if not my guy.

    In my opinion this time around Rubio or Kasich probably had a better chance of winning but the take no prisoners approach of all but Carson and Kasich ensured everyone else was knee deep in criticism before it was over.

    But let’s not ignore just how bad a Hillary administration is going to be for Americans. Whether one votes for Trump or not I hope they are paying close attention to the Senate and House elections.

    spokanebob (1aaf2a)

  207. And of course no one in the blogosphere has their preference changed although many people try to sway them. I’m not so sure that “told to vote for Romney” is what the case was – Perry was my choice but he fell asleep and blew it. This time Cruz and Trump supporters were both up front – no vote if not my guy.

    Spokanebob,

    I admit you’re totally right. I too liked Perry and admit he dropped the ball. And while I was encouraged to vote for Romney, I’m the one who voted for him. But my point is that same logic I used then, lesser of two evils (as I didn’t trust Romney at all) is why I prefer Hillary to Trump.

    let’s not ignore just how bad a Hillary administration is going to be for Americans.

    I think bad, but perhaps not as bad as Obama’s. He’s smoother than her. And I am sincere in my fears of what Trump could do and convinced of how bad he would be.

    Cruz may claim the high ground but his path top 270 is difficult to see.

    He struggled in a crowd, but lasted. I think one on one he’s potent. Against Hillary, a weak candidate, he would present a positive and intelligent argument for fixing the bumbling and huge government. The argument against him would be that he’s a Christian, a dork, and because he looks dorky people don’t like him.

    I have long advocated for a clear choice, instead of the confused choice of Romney/Mccain vs Obama. Cruz versus Clinton is a clear choice. America gets to pick what kind of government it deserves. I think Cruz would win, but that’s because I have faith in people that is often undemonstrated.

    Clinton versus Clinton’s donor is not a clear choice, and the election is the least important in our lives.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  208. Maybe we should all write in Cruz, instead of some other 3rd party,
    Using the correct spelling others have provided.

    MD in Philly (062f39)

  209. I hope the Cruz 2020 stickers have “Hindsight 20:20″ in the background.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  210. Trump’s landslides on April 19 and 26 were in closed primary states (where the Republican Party was a small minority.)

    That’s true. Moderate Republicans have more control of the GOP than conservative republicans. My vote competes with every other Texas republican, of which there are over two million. A new york Republican’s vote is nearly four times as potent per delegate.

    It’s hard to figure out a fair solution. But the real point where things got off the rails was early.

    The party had too many candidates competing for winner-take all contests, with the media giving hundreds of millions in free publicity to one candidate. Many times more coverage than all other candidates got combined, because he was the clownshow that got ratings.

    And at the end of the day, we’ve got to blame the voters themselves. And I do mean blame, because it is clear they were wrong.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  211. Not even true in California, where some parties have open primaries and some do not, at least for President.

    nope: CA state law allows parties to chose to have open primaries or not.
    i checked, which is why i re-registered the other day, so i could vote for Bernie over Shrillery.

    redc1c4 (018028)

  212. Red, come to Texas. Patterico, you too. Let’s build a wall.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  213. Maybe we should all write in Cruz, instead of some other 3rd party,
    Using the correct spelling others have provided.

    Or act on the suggestion of the archbishop from Rhode Island: when forced to pick between two pro abortion candidates (and despite his recent statements, I think Trump is one in the sense that he will do nothing about it), write in Mother Teresa.

    kishnevi (28fa9f)

  214. A brief history of the California primary system.

    [a] In 1996, the voters of the state of California, acting via initiative, approved a “blanket primary” wherein all candidates from all parties were on a single ballot in the primary (which everyone got regardless of party), and then the general election ballot had the top vote-getter in each party, listed with a party label.

    This system was used in 1998 and 2000, although in 2000 the Secretary of State concocted a modified and technically illegal version of it to handle presidential primaries.

    [b] the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, and Peace&Freedom parties sued, saying this system violated their freedom of association by forcing them to allow members of other parties to help them select their nominees.

    [c] In 2000 (after the primary), the Supreme Court agreed, in a 7-2 decision with an opinion written by Justice Scalia.

    This established the principle that the decision (open v closed) is up to *the party*, and that while legislatures can set rules, if the parties don’t accept them, they can sue and win.

    [d] the CA Legislature set up a new primary system which was used in 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010: it allowed parties to choose, on a per-party basis, either closed or semi-open (eg, open to “decline to state voters” but not to members of other parties).

    [e] In 2010, the voters passed another initiative, instituting a modified version of the blanket primary, wherein all candidates from all parties are on a single ballot, but the top two candidates (regardless of party) go to the general election without a party label. This gets around the freedom of association problem.

    That same initiative continued the existing system *for presidential primaries only*.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  215. Bold prediction:

    Hillary is indicted and drops out of the race as part of an agreement to resolve the matter. Trump runs against a younger and less scandalized candidate and loses something like 45 states.

    It could be Warren or Biden.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  216. Kasich is such a pill.

    Rodney King's Spirit (db6706)

  217. “a younger .. candidate”

    It could be Warren or Biden.

    Can you define “younger?”

    Rodney King's Spirit (db6706)

  218. Kasich droning on and on …. pretending that somehow Ohio would have sunk into Lake Erie if not for him, personally. Just he holding back the slide of the State into the abyss.

    Rodney King's Spirit (db6706)

  219. Kasich would be a great Community Organizer.

    Rodney King's Spirit (db6706)

  220. The insufferable John Kasich is prattling on and on. We’re lucky to be shed of him. If he ever had VP aspirations he’s disqualifying himself from consideration right now. It’s one ridiculous self-aggrandizing anecdotal tale tale after another. He sounds a lot like a Baptist preacher.

    ropelight (ae1ce7)

  221. I have routinely heard better Baptist preachers,
    Usually they talk about Jesus being the Savior.

    MD in Philly (062f39)

  222. everyone said he couldn’t do it

    “He can’t do it,” said everyone.

    But he did it!

    “Oh my goodness!” everyone exclaimed.

    And so here we are.

    so much depends
    upon

    a red snapback
    cap

    adorned with
    His slogan

    beside the white
    chickens

    happyfeet (831175)

  223. I think Happy is Trump’s 27 year old transgender fake women lover. It would explain much.

    Probably met thru Roger stone,,,,, literally as Happy went thru Roger Stone at one of his parties.

    Rodney King's Spirit (db6706)

  224. back at the ranch, we’re moving toward defacto single payer,

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-humana-results-idUSKCN0XV1BH

    narciso (732bc0)

  225. you have no joy and these times, they are so joyless

    the era of food stamp is come to its wretched end

    The quest stands on the edge of a knife Mr. Spirit!

    Stray but a little and it will fail – to the ruin of all. (yikes)

    Yet hope remains while we remain true!

    True to the spirit of making America great again!

    will you choose pee-stank

    or will you choose hope?

    For my part I know what I will choose.

    happyfeet (831175)

  226. If Hillary is out, Tim Kaine is in. I guarantee it. And he will walk away with it.

    SarahW (67599f)

  227. I’ve heard Jim Webb mentioned as a triangulating Trump VP, which makes sense for a Republican that is actually a democrat. The silver lining would be he’s got some value for American history and that includes the second amendment. He hated Ocare as the worst of all possible worlds (can’t say he was wrong, but he did vote for it against his principles and regretted it.) Which is not saying much because he always favored some form of single-payer.

    This isn’t an endorsement, just running through the possibilities of what comes next.

    SarahW (67599f)

  228. Bold prediction:

    Hillary is indicted and drops out of the race as part of an agreement to resolve the matter. Trump runs against a younger and less scandalized candidate and loses something like 45 states.

    It could be Warren or Biden.

    Dustin (2a8be7) — 5/4/2016 @ 2:07 pm

    ====================================

    Dustin… so your take is that a sleazy Democrat who in all probability will soon be under criminal indictment is more fit for the presidency than a loudmouthed business man. Good to know.

    Colonel Haiku (40880a)

  229. I just realized. California’s primary is irrelevant. They did it to us again.
    lol

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  230. Can you define “younger?”

    Rodney King’s Spirit (db6706)

    LOL, you got me there!

    Dustin… so your take is that a sleazy Democrat who in all probability will soon be under criminal indictment is more fit for the presidency than a loudmouthed business man. Good to know.

    Colonel Haiku (40880a)

    Is that all Trump is? A loud business man? Why, I thought he was also a scam artist, who smears others indecently, calls for violence against speech, has victimized many, and is thoroughly sleazy and dishonest.

    Oh yeah, he also praised Clinton for president and went on all the big networks praising her for Secretary of State. To you, my preference of Clinton (a terrible candidate) over a worse one is horrible. So you support the guy who did a lot more than vote for Hillary. How on earth do you reconcile this?

    If Hillary is out, Tim Kaine is in. I guarantee it. And he will walk away with it.

    SarahW

    I can see this. If the democrats nominated Webb I would straight up donate over Trump.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  231. I just realized. California’s primary is irrelevant.

    not so: you can still re-register as “no preference” and vote for Bernie over Shrillery…

    that’s what i’m doing.

    redc1c4 (018028)

  232. Let’s talk about primary reforms.

    If the GOP had proportional primaries like the democrats do, Trump would face a contested primary.

    But I think we should do more. Why would my Texas vote be worth less than a republican in a blue state?

    Delegates should be awarded in proportion to actual votes earned. 100k votes in Texas should lead to the same number of delegates as 100k in New York or Indiana. Primaries should be closed, with party declarations being made at least one year before the election. The order of primaries should be geographic, with regions shuffled each cycle. This would lead to a system with less corruption (Trump’s promise of ethanol subsidies) and more coherence.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  233. Panic has struck the elites.
    Like a big mac, luvin it.

    mg (31009b)

  234. These no trumpers think he is worse than kane or webb.
    Blow me, lefty.

    mg (31009b)

  235. red,

    I first voted for Cruz in the 2011 Senate primary when he wanted a fence and more border security, among other things, to curb illegal immigration. That was years before Trump even thought about a wall.

    And it was Cruz, not Trump, who opposed the Gang of 8 amnesty bill in 2013. Just 3 years ago, Trump was agreeing with immigration activists.

    DRJ (15874d)

  236. Actually, the Gang of 8 was announced in Spring 2013, and Trump was agreeing with immigration activists in August 2013. So Trump knew the immigration issues were in the news but he didn’t care.

    DRJ (15874d)

  237. I’m in.

    #NeverTrump
    #NeverHillary

    #AlwaysConstitution

    bitterclinger (a6482e)

  238. Dustin, at 233: I can understand why that *seems* like a good idea, but I think it’s a terrible one.

    This is basically what the Democrats did in the period 1840-1860: their internal party apparatus restricted the power of delegates from states which weren’t supporting Democrats. But this set up a self-reinforcing cycle which led to them becoming a regional party – a decline in representation from states where Democrats were not succeedidng politically encouraged the party to move overall in a direction which reduced the ability of the Democrats to succeed in those states.

    I don’t think either major party emulating this is a good thing for the Republic.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  239. More on Trump during 2012-2013, when Cruz was fighting against illegal immigration.

    Do you see why Texans like me don’t trust Trump on immigration?

    DRJ (15874d)

  240. how about this. #mightaswellbeCanadian

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  241. speaking of things to be done:

    start buying brass, powder, primers and bullets now, along with loaded ammo, before prices start to skyrocket…and stocks disappear.

    maybe a few moar firearms as well, before Newsome’s cavalcade of onerous firearms laws gets shoved down our throats. i’ll need them for proof of sanity when i emigrate to Texas or some other free country.

    redc1c4 (018028)

  242. Did Ted even have the class to congratulate Mr. The Donald on his big victory in Indiana and of course also winning the Republican nomination for the presidency?

    No he did not.

    No wonder nobody likes him.

    No social skills.

    happyfeet (831175)

  243. How do you get free? I’m stuck in Hotel California. And then my friends here are insisting that a vote for Hillary, whose great goal in life is to import California values to the rest of the States, which will leave me with nowhere to run to even if I were able, is less dangerous that a vote for the guy whose greatest crime I can see is insulting Rosie in earshot of Megyn Kelly!

    It’s a rhetorical question.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  244. All is fair in love and politics, folks. You’re seriously saying this is news to you!?!?!

    Ballad of a Thin Man an Ohio Man

    You walk into the room with your tie clasp in your hand
    You see Megyn Kelly and you say, “Who is that man?”
    You try so hard but you don’t understand
    What others know, you don’t cuz you’re so thick
    Because something is happening here but you don’t know what it is
    Do you, John Kasich?

    You raise up your eye brows and you ask, “Is this where it is?”
    And somebody points to you and says, “It’s his”
    And you say, “What’s mine?” and somebody else says, “Well, what is?”
    And you say, “Oh my God, someone give me a kick?”
    But something is happening and you don’t know what it is
    Do you, John Kasich?

    You suspend your campaign and you feel just like a geek
    You’re fooling no one, your reasons are so weak
    And people are asking “How does it feel to be such a freak?”
    And you say, “Impossible!” no one fell for your trick
    And something is happening here but you don’t know what it is
    Do you, John Kasich?

    Colonel Haiku (40880a)

  245. But no social diseases, either.

    nk (dbc370)

  246. I need to get some spare parts for my weapons, and I guess I’m lowish on 5.56.

    Quite a safe investment. I could probably sell ammo a year from now at double the price paid today.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  247. ‘events dear boy,’ as macmillan put it, drove this campaign, the rnc had designed an abbreviated primary schedule, custom fit for the medici, the steinle slaying and san bernardino, got in the way, like with pete wilson, he may not have a previous history
    of enforcement, but that is the tactic,

    narciso (732bc0)

  248. I like Cruz so you’re wrong about that.

    DRJ (15874d)

  249. DRJ – it was somewhat stunning how little support Sen. Cruz was able to draw from his coworkers in the Senate. It somewhat suggested that he’s a pain to work for.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  250. “If the GOP had proportional primaries like the democrats do, Trump would face a contested primary.”

    Two words: Super Delegates.

    Colonel Haiku (40880a)

  251. Not in California you can’t.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  252. That should be the State motto, “not in”.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  253. “I’m looking at that, I’m very different from most Republicans,” Trump told CNN Wednesday about the prospect of raising the minimum wage.

    “You have to have something you can live on. But what I ‘m really looking to do is get people great jobs so they make much more money than that, much more money than the $15.”

    hah he just kicked hillary in her stanky bits

    happyfeet (831175)

  254. I wonder how many Trumpkins who insist that Trump’s worst crime is simple vulgarity have themselves had to pay a $1 million fine for immigration law violations?

    Chumps.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  255. failmerican laws are whimsical and capricious

    happyfeet (831175)

  256. 251. DRJ – it was somewhat stunning how little support Sen. Cruz was able to draw from his coworkers in the Senate. It somewhat suggested that he’s a pain to work for.

    aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/4/2016 @ 3:51 pm </blockquote

    I think we need to distinguish "work for" from "work with."

    As far as know, no one who worked for Cruz dislikes him. Staffers, other lawyers at the Texas AG's division of the Solicitor General, etc. His peers, the people he works with, apparently dislike him. But not the people who work for him.

    Which suits me just fine, as I didn't go to the trouble of moving to Texas so I could vote for a pol who is hungry to make friends in DC. I could have stayed in Kali for that.

    Steve57 (412496)

  257. Guccifer dump info here

    redc1c4 (018028)

  258. Sydney B e-mails here.

    redc1c4 (018028)

  259. #257, Beldar, I don’t know of any Trump supporters who insist his worst crime is simple vulgarity, but quite a few Cruz supporters here are guilty of both simple and compound vulgarity – in fact you’re one.

    ropelight (ae1ce7)

  260. hah he’s got dirt on the execrable and cowardly colin powell

    someone should give gucci a scooby snack

    happyfeet (831175)

  261. Steve57, that’s entirely fair, and to be clear, I meant ‘work with’, not ‘work for'; I don’t know why I mistyped.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  262. and to vote for Mrs Clinton as somehow being just a gunshot wound to the leg fails to recognize that many people have died from gunshot wounds to the leg.

    No, and I chose that image just for that reason. I don’t *know* what will come of it, other than I won’t like it. But I will probably survive, where I won’t with a head shot.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  263. nope: CA state law allows parties to chose to have open primaries or not.

    This is the result of an old lawsuit where the state tried to force open primaries and the GOP beat them in court.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  264. Does that mean I’ve lost your vote in my bid for the White House, rovelight?

    nk (dbc370)

  265. You going on the tour?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  266. some of you are more excited than others but still this is fun and exciting – the prospect of taking back the white house from food stamp and pee-stank

    it’s scary to think the evil pee-stank might could prevail

    then I look at trump

    and the world’s alright with me

    just one look at trump

    and I know it’s gonna be

    it’s gonna be

    it’s gonna be

    a lovely day!

    happyfeet (831175)

  267. n 2010, the voters passed another initiative, instituting a modified version of the blanket primary, wherein all candidates from all parties are on a single ballot, but the top two candidates (regardless of party) go to the general election without a party label.

    This has had the effect of making minor parties almost meaningless as parties only matter in presidential contests. It also handicaps the GOP in redistricting as registration matters for the redistricting commission, but there is utterly no functional difference between Democrat and No Party Preference, so people with NPP are more likely to be Democrats.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  268. > and the GOP beat them in court.

    Oddly enough, while I thought it was the GOP and the Democrats combined, and you think it’s the GOP, the actual case name (as reported by the Supreme Court) is:

    California Democratic Party v. Jones

    :)

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  269. Now that Kasich is out, will Cruz get back in? Then will Kasich get back in?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  270. ropeliar,

    Lying is not a good virtue.
    Then again, you’re a Trumpkin.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  271. Kevin M – I hadn’t thought through the implications for the commission, but I don’t think it actually matters:

    > The Citizens Redistricting Commission commission shall consist of 14 members, as follows: five who are registered with the largest political party in California based on registration, five who are registered with the second largest political party in California based on registration, and four who are not registered with either of the two largest political parties in California based on registration

    “no party preference” is not a political party and so is not the second largest political party for these purposes, and it’s only going to be an issue if somehow Republican or Democratic party registration falls so low that a third party out-registers them.

    I *did* think about the impact for small parties (I lived in California in 2010), but I ended up voting for the measure because I thought the cost was less important the benefit *for legislative races* of having two general election candidates from the same party, thereby allowing the never-going-to-win-in-any-event minority party to gang up with the moderates of the other party to elect the more moderate candidate (who could not possibly win the primary).

    My sense is that at the margins the system has had the intended moderating effect – although having a statewide two-candidates-from-the-same-party race is something I hadn’t considered possible, and it may very well not work as intended.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  272. Well, Jones was a Republican 😉

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  273. Jones was the Secretary of State, who was defending the law in court. :)

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  274. aphrael,
    Cruz called the leader of the senate a liar,
    And by association that implied most who were silent were enablers.

    So yes, calling people out has its consequences,
    But that is what Texans elected him to do,
    And that is why serious people who were paying attention and wanted change in DC wanted him.

    But as I wrote previously,
    People didn’t choose on the basis of being tired of being lied to,
    They chose on the basis of being tired of being pi**ed on.

    So they didn’t choose someone who would tell the truth,
    They chose someone who promised to make the pi**ees the pi**ers.

    Which should alarm you,
    because instead of people like me who disagree with you and want the freedom to live what we believe,
    you are getting those who want to hit back twice as hard, Chicago style as popularized by the one pushing your agenda.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  275. aphrael,

    Consider this: the commission is 5R + 5D + 4 from a group that is disproportionately Democrat-leaning.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  276. > So they didn’t choose someone who would tell the truth,
    > They chose someone who promised to make the pi**ees the pi**ers.

    Yeah, I think that’s about right.

    > Which should alarm you,

    It does.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  277. No, papertiger, I was joking. I do not want a President older than I am, and next January I will be older than I am.

    nk (dbc370)

  278. Jones was the Secretary of State, who was defending the law in court.

    Yes, of course. And he lost. But there *was* a Republican involved. That keeps it to 3 Pinocchios.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  279. I’m not sure that the numbers bear that out, Kevin.

    The Secretary of State’s office has voter registration statistics going back to Oct 1999 on their website.

    In October of 1999, registration was:

    DEM 6,788,042 (46.3%)
    REP 5,126,768 (35.0%)
    DTS 1,980,132 (13.5%)

    In January of 2016, registration was:

    DEM 7,43,655 (43.1%)
    REP 4,767,259 (27.6%)
    NPP 4,141,860 (24.0%)

    this makes it seem much more like the NPP numbers are driven by disaffected former Republicans.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  280. My follow up point was that you would have been better off with Cruz, even if he won the presidency, as he would be a moderating force emphasizing personal liberty;
    but if you want the government to officially sanction one behavior under one prevailing power,
    don’t be surprised when the opposing prevails.

    We either have religious freedom and freedom of conscience,
    or we don’t.
    Cruz would want us to have it.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  281. Also interesting is the county breakdown.

    The counties with the highest percentage of NPP are:

    San Francisco
    Santa Clara
    Lake
    Yuba
    San Diego
    San Mateo
    Mono
    Alpine
    Imperial
    Humboldt

    The counties with the highest percentage of Republican are:

    Modoc
    Lassen
    Kings
    Placer
    Tulare
    Shasta
    Mariposa
    Amador
    Glenn
    Tehama

    (note how these are all … small population counties)

    The counties with the highest percentage of Democrat are:

    Alameda
    San Francisco
    Marin
    Santa Cruz
    Sonoma
    San Mateo
    Los Angeles
    Monterey
    Imperial
    Contra Costa

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  282. > My follow up point was that you would have been better off with Cruz, even if he won the presidency, as he would be a moderating force emphasizing personal liberty;

    I’ll note again that I’m currently registered as a Republican with the intent of voting for Sen. Cruz in the California primary. :)

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  283. All these years the self appointed super smart of team republican tell us who to vote for and like it. Their useless candidates have a lock on the silver medal every four years. – Take your ball that your parents bought you and go home.

    mg (31009b)

  284. Or by 3rd parties. The point being is that one loses nothing, and gains anonymity moving from Dem to NPP. TO move from the GOP to NPP loses you the right to vote on presidential nominations, fwiw. But you may be right, and it may in fact be the anonymity is more attractive to Republicans, given the nastiness displayed by certain groups with respect to who supported what and kicking people out of jobs.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  285. I also get the sense that the Republican party has such a tarnished brand image in California that a lot of people who would be Republicans elsewhere are not Republicans here because of the brand tarnishing.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  286. Not O/T; there’s a connection.

    http://abc13.com/entertainment/caitlyn-jenner-to-pose-naked/1323752/

    Naked. On the cover of SI.

    I’m holding out hope this is a joke. But then I thought the whole Trump deal was a joke so I’m now the last guy you want to turn to in order to identify internet hoaxes.

    Who is this supposed to appeal to, on any level? Gay Bolsheviks? Even if “Caitlyn Jenner” were an actual woman, which he’s not, “she” is still 65 and not someone I want to see naked pictures of.

    Of course, I’m sure the thighs will be tastefully arranged to hide the fact that Jenner remains intact, and to highlight the effect of the hormone therapy on his breasts.

    The sudden silence was me puking in the yard clutching the False Pear Tree for dear life.

    It’s madness, people. I’m sure the Trumpanzees will hate the fact I’m linking it all together and will insist that they’re all different forms of entirely different diseases. But no, it’s all the same insanity.

    I agree with the Trumpanzees that something is wrong.

    But they looked at the problem and decided the fix was more Salem witch trials.

    Steve57 (412496)

  287. NPP preference is not the refuge of the majority in an area. I would expect a Republican employed in SF to be very circumspect about it.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  288. Yeah, i’m somewhat curious how I get treated going into a polling place in San Francisco as a Republican.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  289. I don’t see it as tarnished, as I see it as targeted. Statewide elections in CA go 55-45 pretty routinely. It is only in places like San Francisco where the vote is 90-10 and many Democrats believe that they know no Republicans. If SF, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin and San Mateo were to become a state, the rest of the state would vote GOP.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  290. dial the neuralizer, confidence is high on the gagging reflex,

    narciso (732bc0)

  291. aphrael,

    Isn’t it hard to make judgments about California based on data like that since the population has changed so much?

    DRJ (15874d)

  292. 264. Steve57, that’s entirely fair, and to be clear, I meant ‘work with’, not ‘work for'; I don’t know why I mistyped.

    aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/4/2016 @ 4:21 pm

    I’m a jerk, just not that jerk. You are normally accurate and precise and if it were a mere typo as opposed to making a mistake that changed the meaning I wouldn’t have mentioned it. Because nobody appointed me internet typo cop.

    I figured you’d take it with the most generous of interpretations that I did, in fact, mean to convey.

    Steve57 (412496)

  293. Republican voters in our neighboring districts number in the single digits…and we think that they miscounted!!

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  294. the #Failifornia GOPe *is* a damaged brand… they push RINO candidates like that Obola administration carpetbagger Kash n’ Carry, on the grounds that they are “electable”…

    as if any self-respecting demonrat or NPP voter is going to vote for Demonrat Lite when they can have the real deal.

    me, given the choice between him and Moonbeam in 2014, voted for both of them.

    i’d have left it blank, but someone might have tried to correct my “mistake” for me…

    redc1c4 (018028)

  295. The GOP voters made their choice, that’s how representative government works. If you’ve got a problem with that, you’ve got a problem with the history and traditions of constitutional government.

    There is no history or tradition of allowing voters to dictate to a political party which candidates it shall run for any office. It’s got nothing to do with constitutional government and everything to do with populism and progressivism. It was always a terrible idea.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  296. That used to be true, but I don’t think it is anymore. Republicans won’t win in LA county, Santa Clara county, or Imperial county, for example.

    Two examples from recent elections:

    In 2012, for President, and ignoring minor parties, the statewide total was 61.8 (7,854,285) / 38.2 (4,839,958).

    If you take out the counties you listed (SF, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Mateo), you get:

    6,486,073 (59.33) / 4,444,547 (40.67)

    OK, so maybe Presidential elections are an outlier. I’m going to ignore the Senate, and i’m going to ignore Jerry Brown because he’s Jerry Brown, but let’s look at AG:

    4,102,549 (57.5%) / 3,003,476 (42.5%)

    removing your listed counties:

    3,316,455 (54.8%) / 2,734,921 (45.2%)

    If you then remove LA, Santa Clara, and Imperial, it gets you to:

    2,089,951 (49.5%) / 2,128,056 (50.5%)

    which means that if you remove the Bay Area and LA (since honestly Imperial is a rounding error), then you get … competitive races. Not even a sure Republican victory, just a competitive race.

    The really instructive thing in this regard, for me, was when Steve Cooley, a longtime LA county DA, lost LA county *by a landslide* when he ran for AG.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  297. Steve57 – indeed, I didn’t take you as calling out a typo; I took my mistypying as being legitimately confusing and unclear, and you were right to comment on it. I greviously misspoke!

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  298. DRJ – possibly, and yet the data are all I have, right?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  299. Ted Cruz damaged his brand a lot too with excessive butt snuffles on kim davis (yuck) and all those goldy sacky tricks he pulled trying to steal Mr. Trump’s delegates

    plus he’s a loser now

    that’s never good for your brand

    he’s like political chipotle

    happyfeet (831175)

  300. getting back to Guccifer, there’s a rumor going around that he was extradited not to prosecute him, but to question him about Shrillery’s server, how he hacked it, etc, as part of the investigation into the shrew and her unsecured server full of classified material.

    redc1c4 (018028)

  301. What’s to be done?

    You failed to lead. You will not follow. And did not get out of the frigging way. And got run over.

    This was inevitable. It began tp percolate up with the election of Pennsylvania millionaire, John Heinz to the U.S. Senate in the mid-70’s, crested with Reagan and been cascading down hill since one termer GHWB. And it will end with Trump. Look at Will’s suggestion- lose 50 states and let the 25 year foe, Hilary Clinton, win and hold her to one term. What kind of an obstructionist future is that? Madness.

    ‘Reaganomics’ has failed two generations, hence the popularity of Sanders with the young.

    Our objective has been to dissolve the rigid obstructionism that has been conservative movement. And with Trump, we have succeeded. Thank God.

    DCSCA (a343d5)

  302. The alternatives left are (a) vote for a third party candidate; (b) run a new third party or independent candidate; (c) vote for Hillary; (d) write in a protest vote (“Never Trump”) or (e) stay home.

    Personally, the chances of (a) or (b) appear nil. (c) makes me gag, I can’t do it. That leaves (d) or (e). I think I will go with (d). My way of giving the middle finger to the candidate who represents giving the middle finger.

    So that’s my proposal. Vote for “Never Trump.” It is shorthand for, “I am not voting for a charlatan, and I am not voting for a corrupt quasi-socialist. Next time, the Republican party can do better.”

    Bored Lawyer (aff0d2)

  303. I would feel nervous about my food, etc., if I was him.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  304. I think happened on an episode of blindspot, where the witness was going to point out the svr mole,

    narciso (732bc0)

  305. Remember, Mark, you were chanting about closet liberals before someone patiently explained to you what the word ‘liberal’ means

    Dustin, one reason why I had you pegged as more of the left than you realize was because of my often using “liberal” negatively, and contemptuously, and your fussing (presumably due to your feeling a bit of indignation) over my not understanding its true meaning. But not just so much that one reaction alone from you as much as a few other instances (don’t recall the specific topics in the past—but do recall your giving me the impression you’re squishier than I had previously guessed), including today, when you do give more leeway — instinctually — to a liberal or to left-leaning concepts.

    Mark (7cb211)

  306. getting back to Guccifer, there’s a rumor going around that he was extradited not to prosecute him, but to question him about Shrillery’s server, how he hacked it, etc, as part of the investigation into the shrew and her unsecured server full of classified material.

    redc1c4 (018028) — 5/4/2016 @ 5:34 pm
    ============================================

    move along, nothing to see here. She’s just a bi+ch.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  307. Mark – you seem very left-leaning and squishy recently.

    JD (de2247)

  308. 309… lol

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  309. [e] In 2010, the voters passed another initiative, instituting a modified version of the blanket primary, wherein all candidates from all parties are on a single ballot, but the top two candidates (regardless of party) go to the general election without a party label. This gets around the freedom of association problem.

    That same initiative continued the existing system *for presidential primaries only*.

    aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/4/2016 @ 2:06 pm

    Here’s the untold story of California’s top-two primaries from an Atlantic writer sympathetic to former State Senator Abel Maldonado, who engineered the entire scheme (bold mine):

    In 2009, California’s state legislature was struggling to pass a budget. Republicans dug in their heels because the Democrats’ budget contained a massive tax hike, going against a pledge signed by many GOP legislators to pass no new taxes. As state services were threatened and the public began to show its resentment, Democrats searched for the single Republican vote they needed to pass the budget, which required a two-thirds majority. They turned to Maldonado, who was a moderate Republican.

    Maldonado agreed to align himself with the Democrats, if they would help advance the implementation of the top-two primary in return. The system appealed to Maldonado as a result of his experience in his district, which was almost evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. Maldonado had come up through the political ranks convinced of the need to appeal to both sides, and he knew the benefit this brought to politics: moderate candidates who knew how to work with other party. The gridlock in the California legislature over the budget provided the opportunity Maldonado had been looking for.

    Uh huh. Here’s what Christopher Caen, author of that piece, left out:

    Maldonado, who gave a Spanish-only keynote address at the Republican convention in 2000 and another at the 2008 convention, thought of himself as a rising star. To raise his profile toward his rumored goal of eventually becoming Governor of California, he agreed to the above-described deal, but that wasn’t the end of it. When then-Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi (D) vacated his office after winning the House seat vacated by Democrat Ellen Tauscher (who joined the State Department in D.C.), Schwarzenegger had the right to hand-pick the #2 executive position for the rest of his term. He picked Maldonado. While this wasn’t explicitly spoken of as part of the budget deal, it’s a logical conclusion to connect those dots.

    Maldonado thought he would be in the catbird seat being the incumbent Lt. Governor when election time came because no Democrat of any notoriety seemed to want the job. On top of that, he would appeal to California’s burgeoning Hispanic population because … well, because he’s Hispanic. Then something unexpected happened. Former San Francisco mayor and SJW folk hero Gavin Newsom, who earlier had dropped out of the gubernatorial race because Jerry Brown had sucked up all the available campaign funding, entered the Lt. Gov race. Oops. Newsom cleaned Maldonado’s clock.

    Maldonado has since lost a Congressional election in a newly-formed district to ensconced Democrat Lois Capps, and in 2014 quickly aborted a campaign for the Governor’s mansion after failing to draw dollars or interest. So his big gambit in wrecking the way that Californians select their leaders, borne out of his ego and lust for power, didn’t even work out for him. And we’re all still stuck with the top-two system that virtually guarantees that no Republican will be elected to a statewide position in the near-future.

    Thanks, RINO.

    L.N. Smithee (b84cf6)

  310. LN Smithee: I voted for Maldonado in that election, because I have … issues … with Lt. Gov. Newsom.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  311. I also don’t really understand your calling her ‘bill’s wife’. It seems out of place. Bill Clinton was nowhere near as sleazy as Trump. Does anyone seriously argue otherwise?

    Dustin, I breezed through this thread, including your reply to me, and just now noticed your paragraph about Bill Clinton. You’ve defended Hillary (in a roundabout way), and now you’re defending her sleazy — yea, sleazy — old man.

    My earlier way of categorizing what makes you tick stands. But just remember that almost every major screw-up of Republican presidents has been when they allowed their inner-liberal to get the better of them.

    Mark (7cb211)

  312. Mark – you seem very left-leaning and squishy recently.

    JD, it’s gotten so bad I may pick up and relocate to Detroit.

    Mark (7cb211)

  313. Guys, I’m honestly trying to see the Trumpkin point of view. I really am. I even went three hours this morning without brushing my teeth or shaving. I’m not exaggerating. At least three hours. It could have been four. And I did not floss.

    nk (dbc370)

  314. Read what this links to and see if you still want to be a part of it all… https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/05/03/get-ready-for-the-biggest-media-assault-youve-ever-seen-aimed-squarely-at-trump/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  315. Is it the policies, or is it that Trump-leaning Republicans won’t vote for someone with an Hispanic surname?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  316. Ted Cruz damaged his brand a lot too with excessive butt snuffles on kim davis (yuck)

    happyfeet (831175) — 5/4/2016 @ 5:26 pm

    Do you possess the ability to have a thoughtful conversation?

    L.N. Smithee (b84cf6)

  317. Paula Bolyard just found that out? Who told her? Was it you, Haiku?

    nk (dbc370)

  318. LN Smithee: I voted for Maldonado in that election, because I have … issues … with Lt. Gov. Newsom.
    aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/4/2016 @ 5:52 pm

    You and me both. It was a hold-your-nose moment. But there’s no clamp strong enough to escape stench of Trump. It’s more than the smell of death. It’s more like radioactivity. You just have to steer clear of it or face unthinkable consequences.

    L.N. Smithee (b84cf6)

  319. Not that I ever bought the execrable jungle primary nonsense. “Oh, but even in single-party districts you’ll get a chance to vote for moderation!” The day another Democrat dares to run against some of these entrenched inner-city officeholders will be the same day pigs fly. Can you imagine being a Democrat filing to run against Maxine Waters? You’ll be lucky to have sewer service at your house the next day.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  320. Do you possess the ability to have a thoughtful conversation?

    Happyfeet thinks in his own peculiar set of bumper-sticker thoughts. Sometimes hard to follow as it is recursive and only partially re-entrant.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  321. Quite a few folks around here who are often mistaken, but never in doubt.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  322. Happyfeet thinks in his own peculiar set of bumper-sticker thoughts. Sometimes hard to follow as it is recursive and only partially re-entrant.

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/4/2016 @ 6:08 pm

    I’d really like to get an answer from these people who seem to be offended by Cruz’s Christianity as if it would affect their lives. They don’t seem to be able to do that other than by spitting insults, and I suspect that’s because it’s all they’ve got.

    L.N. Smithee (b84cf6)

  323. Paula Bolyard just found that out? Who told her? Was it you, Haiku?

    nk

    F*ck dogs, you’ll get fleas. You should know that, nk, you’re Greek. Just sayin’…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  324. This post has swayed me in my choice for the GE. James Madison deserves more recognition for his efforts in writing the Constitution and then defending it in The Federalist Papers. It will please me to write his name on my ballot November 8th.

    Rick Ballard (0a77a4)

  325. Nah, you’re confusing Athens, Greece with Athens, Georgia.

    nk (dbc370)

  326. seriously this gesture, seems as blinkered as the narodniki or the social revolutionaries,

    narciso (732bc0)

  327. Lol… Touché

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  328. that’s where rem was from no?

    narciso (732bc0)

  329. Yes, narciso, but don’t hold it agin ’em.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  330. 312. …because I have … issues … with Lt. Gov. Newsom.

    aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/4/2016 @ 5:52 pm

    That makes you sane.

    Steve57 (412496)

  331. I can’t see why Mexico wouldn’t love Trump. He talked a good game, but underneath it all, he’s the guy who wants amnesty the most. More than Hillary, for example. On this and many issues, there’s a chance someone will fight Hillary from the right, but Trump would co-opt it for the left.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  332. L.N. —

    I’m not offended by people’s Christianity, nor even when it informs their politics. I may think they have their head up their ass but I’d be offended a lot if that offended me.

    I am offended by people attacking someone’s beliefs on the basis of their religion — it shows an hostility to freedom of thought. I can applaud someone sticking by their principles even when I don’t share them and prefer the thing they oppose.

    HF is often offensive, especially when he thinks he’s on the side of the “tolerant”, which in his case are anything but.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  333. Yes, I always expect Trump to stab all his followers in the back, knowing that the cult will excuse it and blame it on everyone else.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  334. Where has Paula been? We’ve been saying that here since September. That the media was going to unleash Hell on Trump should he get the nomination.

    nk (dbc370)

  335. Yep, a no-brainer, perhaps just a reminder to some of the type of scum they’ll fall in with.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  336. I did get offended by Cruz quoting a verse from Psalms in a way that totally reversed the original context.

    But that is the worst thing I can accuse him of…

    In fact, the reason I dislike Cruz is because he strikes me as smarmy. Same reason I dislike Joe Lieberman. But I would still vote for Cruz vs. Hillary if he had won the nomination.

    kishnevi (31ba4e)

  337. they get it coming and going,

    http://www.adn.com/article/20160504/shell-gone-arctic-us-official-fears-fading-attention-region

    which passage, some of beck’s comments were unoptimal, but I didn’t take umbrage with it,

    narciso (732bc0)

  338. I can see where sometimes Cruz might seem condescending.
    (That means talking down to people.)

    nk (dbc370)

  339. “In fact, the reason I dislike Cruz is because he strikes me as smarmy.”
    ===========================

    Funny you should mention that. That is the impression I had of him, but then I began focusing on and listening to the points he was making. I gradually overcame my misgivings and went all in and will always feel another error in judgment has been made by the voting public, just as was the case in November 2012.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  340. I really am tired of all of you drama queens.

    Trump is better than some, worse than others.

    In my part of the world when a bull knocks down all the other bulls and threatens to run amok, we don’t run away, we ride him, rope him, hobble him, send in the rodeo clowns to distract him, tame him, put him in harness and use his great strength.

    Fred Z (9ed538)

  341. > The day another Democrat dares to run against some of these entrenched inner-city officeholders will be the same day pigs fly.

    There’ve been a couple, though – almost all of them Dem-on-Dem.

    Because, honestly, in one-party places like the Bay Area, that’s the only way *any* reform is going to happen.

    [Note: i voted for *both* blanket primary initiatives]

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  342. “I am confident that I can unite much of it,” Trump said on the TODAY show. “Some of it, I don’t want.”

    I feel Trump is speaking directly to me with this comment and I intend to fully comply with his desire to remain unencumbered.

    Rick Ballard (0a77a4)

  343. “Some of it, I don’t want.”

    you can’t even imagine pandering snivelpoop ted cruz saying something that ballsy

    happyfeet (831175)

  344. I’m not offended by people’s Christianity, nor even when it informs their politics. I may think they have their head up their ass but I’d be offended a lot if that offended me.

    All I can say, Kevin, is that that Third Commanment says that I shall not take the Lord’s name in vain. I never took it, I never was taught, that if I let the bolt on my Garand close on my thumb and I say something I will regret I’m going to h3ll (rookie mistake, just do a karate chop move to forward when you’re pushing the follower down an you’re OK).

    …for the LORD will not hold [him] guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

    If on the other hand you advise people to do evil in the name of the Lord, or advocate it, that is taking the Lord’s name in vain.

    It was one of the things I found most irksome about Kasitch. He seemed to think expanding Medicaid made him a better Christian. Medicaid is a cruel joke, IMHO. I could be wrong but then I could be right. I’d never say you have to do this or that because God says so.

    Kasich should have read the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collecter.

    I won’t risk it. Not for me is it to say if you don’t support my policies St. Peter isn’t going to let you in.

    Steve57 (412496)

  345. Fred Z maybe it’s the Latin in me but sometimes we kill them.

    Steve57 (412496)

  346. About the bulls, Fred.

    Steve57 (412496)

  347. @ Fred Z (#343), who wrote:

    Trump is better than some, worse than others.

    In my part of the world when a bull knocks down all the other bulls and threatens to run amok, we don’t run away, we ride him, rope him, hobble him, send in the rodeo clowns to distract him, tame him, put him in harness and use his great strength.

    That makes me curious what part of the world you live in. I live in Houston, where the Houston Livestock Show & Rodeo draws crowds north of 2.5M every year, and I grew up in ranching country in west Texas, where the Dawson County Rodeo drew crowds north of, um, Big Spring. I don’t recall any rodeo events where we put bulls together to let them knock each other down.

    Are you sure you aren’t talking about water buffalo?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  348. Oh wait, never mind, I get it now. The reason you mentioned Trump was because he’s like the rodeo clowns in your part of the world. Interesting observation, Fred! Thanks.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  349. (I personally wouldn’t have made that comparison. Rodeo clowning is an honorable and dangerous job!)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  350. Beldar, just so you know, and I trust that you do, I don’t advocate a blanket policy of killing bulls.

    Exodus 21

    27″And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth. 28″If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall surely be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall go unpunished. 29″If, however, an ox was previously in the habit of goring and its owner has been warned, yet he does not confine it and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death.

    Mr. fan of “an-eye-for-an-eye” should have expected return fire.

    Steve57 (412496)

  351. hatefulfeet (#346), you finally got something right, just like a stopped clock is right twice a day. Cruz would indeed never have said that he rejects support from within the Republican Party. To the contrary, throughout his campaign, through its conclusion, he stressed that he welcomed the support of anyone who’d previously supported other candidates or who’d been undecided.

    Why you think, and Trump thinks, that it’s a good thing, a brave thing, a valorous thing, for Trump to go out of his way to alienate Cruz or Kasich supporters, or anyone who might help him actually get elected is inexplicable, unless I assume that you and Trump are both operating at the emotional and intellectual level of four-year-olds. (With inattentive parents.) So that’s my working assumption.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  352. Steve57 (#354), your trust in my intuition about you is well-placed, again! 😉

    But say: Have you ever been to a rodeo where the bulls knock each other down until one’s left, then someone rides him, ropes him (I’d have done that first, I think), hobbles him, tames him, sends in rodeo clowns to distract him, and then puts him in harness to use his great strength? You’ve traveled more broadly than I have, and I’m trying to figure out where Fred might be from, where they do those strange things, in such a peculiar sequence, to bulls at rodeos.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  353. you’re mean but i forgive you i know you’re having a bad week with how Ted lost and Donald won

    it’s gonna be fun though in a little bit when we all united to stop the Pee-stank Ascendancy

    it’s what God wants us to do

    we have to stop her

    happyfeet (831175)

  354. 311… And we’re all still stuck with the top-two system that virtually guarantees that no Republican will be elected to a statewide position in the near-future.

    How does the top-two system disadvantage Republicans? If they have little chance I expect the main reason is they aren’t very popular not the system.

    James B. Shearer (4e85e1)

  355. Houston Livestock Show & Rodeo

    Beldar, I used to go to these as a kid! Great memories of Reba singing the national anthem with fireworks in the Astrodome. The right kind of ostentatious, much unlike Trump’s version, which is about himself instead of about how awesome a society can be.

    , for Trump to go out of his way to alienate Cruz or Kasich supporters

    He seeks not to lead us but to rule us. He doesn’t think being president is about earning our trust. He thinks it’s about proving he is better than us. This is why he responds to criticism with calls for one version or another of domination. Lawfare harassment, violence, riots. Those aren’t the tools of Cruz or Reagan.

    Hillary too has used lawfare in opposition to speech. But not violence, as far as I can recall.

    Such a disgusting choice. I don’t hate anyone who picks Trump over Hillary. It’s not an easy decision. I pray for better times ahead, as Cruz said, in his boundless optimism for our future. Perhaps this is the kick the right needs.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  356. I Think you guys need to get over yourselves. Quitting the Republican party? Why were sticking around over the past 16 years? Because the Republicans were such an honest-to-goodness representative of what you are now claiming yo be your mantra? Your quitting now is way too late to have any beneficial effect.

    xsssx (ba3460)

  357. Thanks, nk, for the humor,
    Wife enjoyed it as well.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  358. #356, I have all the patience of a cobra.

    Also when I mentioned the bulls I was thinking of the buffs.

    Steve57 (412496)

  359. They’re still bulls, right?

    Steve57 (412496)

  360. One way to imagine what the U. S. would be like under Trump is to replace the words “National Enquirer” with “Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Defense, Internal Revenue Service, and Department of Justice”. What’s been visited on the Cruz family could be coming to your neighborhood real soon, comrade.

    That’s actually a reason to support Trump rather than Clinton. There’s good reason to believe that if the IRS received such an instruction from Trump they would not only refuse to carry it out, but would also make it known that he had given it, which would be grounds for impeachment. That’s what happened when Nixon tried it, and I see no reason why they’d be any more receptive to Trump. The other agencies would probably also react that way. Whereas Clinton wouldn’t even need to give the instructions; they’d be way ahead of her, just as they were under her husband and under 0bama.

    I’m sure this hasn’t even occurred to Trump, just as it never occurred to him that the armed forces would refuse an illegal order.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  361. It was pretty clear in 2012 that the polls were showing an Obama victory, yet a large number of people *here* were convinced that Romney was going to win, or at least affected to be so.

    Those polls seemed impossible to believe. They were based on turnout projections that were historically unprecedented except in 2008, which was surely a one-time event. How could 0bama possibly bring his voters out again in 2012? Then St Trayvon happened.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  362. I want to have a way of talking more directly to those of you who really care about changing this country and bringing us back to constitutional principles.

    Your effort will be even more Sisyphean if you don’t go beyond a textbook or scholarly type of approach to politics. Simply put, you know legal and constitutional matters far above that of the average American, but you’re more likely to hit a brick wall if you believe such knowledge takes precedence over the power of human nature.

    One example of that was your apparently visceral and soft impressions of Obama back in early 2009, or your willingness to give him the benefit of the doubt far above and beyond what the facts about and reality of him justified.

    I mentioned today that the biggest blunders of Republican presidents — such as Reagan’s foolish secret negotiations with hostage-taking Iran — have occurred when they’ve listened to that little liberal voice in the back of their brain. A voice that whispers to just about all humans out there. The difference between one person and the other, however, is the degree of their wariness of or innocence about that little voice.

    Mark (fb60e8)

  363. Narciso – the thing which terrifies me the most about this election cycle is the following scenario:

    (a) Sen. Clinton gets the nomination.
    (b) in September or October, after it is too late to change the ballots, she is indicted.
    (c) Trump wins.

    Won’t happen. The FBI and DOJ are all Democrats, and if they’re going toindict her they’ll do it either before the convention or after the election. I think 0bama has the indictment ready and will drop it on her a week before the convention. But if it doesn’t come then then it will either come after the election or not at all.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  364. Another possibility is that they’re waiting for Trump’s testimony in the two fraud cases, hoping it will yield enough evidence to indict him too, so they can drop both on the same day and appear impartial.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  365. What is to be done?

    Suppose the answer is a new party. What would be its precepts? If we limited them to 5 or 6 fundamental ideas, what would they be? I would start with these:

    1. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and should be read as plain language and interpreted when possible by original intent.

    2. The federal government is limited to the powers specified in the Constitution.

    3. All other powers are retained by the People, or delegated by them to the State in which they reside.

    4. The Bill of Rights applies at all levels of government.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  366. your willingness to give him the benefit of the doubt

    such evil!

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  367. Just for the record: anyone who gives Bill Clinton the “benefit of the doubt” is one of two things: either a Quaker or is terminally naive.

    Colonel Haiku (2f3828)

  368. such evil!

    A better description would be “such nonsense!” or “such foolishness!”

    Anyone who was fully aware of the stereotypical anti-US leftism of the Democrat’s candidate in 2008 — a person who wanted Jeremiah Wright to be one of his major campaign advisers through the latter half of 2008 until Wright’s ideology and theology finally caused a flap — yet perceived him as also deserving of the label “patriotic” is quite ridiculous.

    Such a reaction back then was as willfully blind and sappy as the belief in 2016 that Trump is a man of his word and adheres to an ideology that’s firmer than a bowl of Jell-O.

    Mark (fb60e8)

  369. #364: milhouse, let’s dispense with impeachment unless the D’s sweep the board in November. The R’s have been tested and they failed at every step. The administration runs roughshod over any attempt at Congressional oversight. Do we really need to revisit the last five years? The system of checks and balances is dead. So that leaves us with the men and women in the agencies. Will they do the right thing? These agencies, like the IRS, are already deeply enmeshed in conspiracies to hide the truth of their activities under Obama, and now the FBI has the goods on Hillary! and they dither. I rather suspect these protectors civic virtue will find a way to continue doing what is best …. for them and their master. And my hypothetical is that Trump will be that master. Just imagine the fun the National Enquirer will have when it is given access to years of tax returns, reports of FBI security screenings, sealed court documents, and every phone call and email their victims have made over the last decade. And those fellows following every Congressman and Senator won’t be their security detail, they’ll be minders.

    BobStewartatHome (404986)

  370. Just for the record: anyone who gives Bill Clinton the “benefit of the doubt”

    I guess I thought they were talking about Obama, who is worse than Bill. But you don’t seem to understand the expression, benefit of the doubt. Of course it only applies before you know. That’s the doubt part. Saying you know so much you don’t give the benefit of the doubt is either arrogance or ignorance.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  371. One example of that was your apparently visceral and soft impressions of Obama back in early 2009, or your willingness to give him the benefit of the doubt far above and beyond what the facts about and reality of him justified.

    Tell me more! I don’t believe I have ever heard from you on this topic!

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  372. HEY, Trumpies, he’s already betraying you!

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) stood with Trump. “As the presumptive nominee, he now has the opportunity and the obligation to unite our party around our goals,” McConnell said in a statement.

    “I’m very much a team player, and I look forward to working with Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy and everybody,” Trump said. He said he aims for “total cooperation,” though noted their clear differences on trade.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-takes-the-reins-of-a-divided-republican-party/2016/05/04/48df48ca-122a-11e6-93ae-50921721165d_story.html

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  373. This would be very difficult, but it would solve a lot of problems:
    A Constitutional Amendment stating that the executive branch can propose regulations, but the proposed regulations have no effect until the Congress explicitly passes them as a law.

    This would shift the burden from the current “Congress must pass a law to void undesireable regulations made by the executive branch” to “Congress must pass a law to activate regulations proposed by the executive branch”. Obstructionists could stop Congress from activating new regulations, whereas now obstructionists can keep Congress from interfering with the executive branch making up any regulations they please.

    Ken in Camarillo (17aa36)

  374. Ken,

    All that is needed is for the Supreme Court to undo it’s terrible decision in INS vs Chadha and allow the legislative veto.

    All of these massive regulatory agencies were created with language that one or both houses (depending on the agency)) could “veto” a regulation by passing a resolution of disapproval in a certain period of time. This went to the Court, which not only struck down one-house legislative vetoes, but also ruled that these were severable from the acts enabling the agencies. They knew this was BS (and a few justices called them on this) but to rule otherwise would have closed a number of federal agencies entirely.

    The two-house vetoes were never ruled on, but have been stricken from all the laws as they were updated. Clearly the Court was wrong opined that these agencies could be controlled by Congress in other ways, given a hostile administration.

    Of course, fixing this would require either a GOP president, which doesn’t seem likely now, or a Constitutional amendment grant Congress this veto power directly.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  375. A Constitutional Amendment stating that the executive branch can propose regulations, but the proposed regulations have no effect until the Congress explicitly passes them as a law.

    Don’t need an amendment for this. A simple law would do it: “Agencies cannot enact regulations.” Problem is that Congress does not want to have to deal with 99% of regulations which are about things like doorknob standards.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  376. That’s the point, Kevin M. If Congress does not want to have to deal with 99% of regulations then we don’t need them.

    Rev. Hoagie ™ (734193)

  377. So candidate Trump is going to impose martial law on the New Jersey if it’s hit by an October hurricane.

    I like your giving Trump the promotion.

    I remember a series of McCain for President YouTubes appearing at Patterico. More often than not they didn’t work. There was an expose on McCain as zombie apocalypse Dracula. We found it unfair. Joker faced Obama. We liked it.

    In the photo allegedly of Rafael Cruz and Oswald there is a second man handing out fliers , the same companion appears in the proven photo of Rafael Cruz marching for Castro, holding the flag.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  378. What’s the penalty for knowing Oswald on a personal/professional basis, without writing a book?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  379. But if you yell about immigration and jihadis, and merely complain about big government, don’t be surprised if people only pay attention to the first two. Especially when the solutions you offer help shore up big government.

    kishnevi (28fa9f) — 5/4/2016 @ 12:40 pm

    You seem to be creating a “fact” out of thin air, i.e. “yelling” vs. “complaining”. Give me a few actual real life example of what constituted “yelling” and what distinguishes them from “complaining” about big government.

    Gerald A (7c7ffb)

  380. Tell me more! I don’t believe I have ever heard from you on this topic!

    Pat, the point is how can you be surprised and dismayed by your fellow Americans, now or at other times, when your impressions of human nature and, in turn, how that aspect of society affects politics (regardless of the details of the US Constitution and judicial history) led you to recently theorize that the Congress — in spite of the reality of the past 8 years — will at least fight or resist a President Hillary.

    Or when you found yourself sort of rationalizing away the nature (and meaning) of Jeremiah Wright by saying, no, his preaching “goddamn America, your chickens are coming home to roost” didn’t occur on a regular basis, therefore implying his ideology/theology shouldn’t be characterized as “goddamn America”—much less the meaning of all that as reflected upon Wright’s former buddy in the White House.

    In both instances, the incongruity that comes to mind is best illustrated by the phrase “and other than THAT, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”

    Mark (fb60e8)

  381. Remember, Mark, you were chanting about closet liberals before someone patiently explained to you what the word ‘liberal’ means.

    Mark’s litmus test has been clear for a long time. Anyone who doesn’t share his obsession with teh gay is automatically a leftist at heart.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  382. “Trump? I don’t wanna! I don’t have ta! You can’t make me!”

    Flash: CONSERVATIVES SPANKED. SENT TO BED WITHOUT DINNER.

    DCSCA (a343d5)

  383. Clarification on my suggestion for a Constitutional Amendment regarding executive branch creation of regulations: I believe a correct interpretation of the Constitution IS exactly what my Amendment would make explicit. The Constitution says Congress has the exclusive power to make laws.

    I favor the executive branch proposing regulations, because they deal with the details of enforcing the current laws and see what needs adjustment. This also keeps the Congress from being buried in “minutia”. It is important however that Congress explicitly pass a law to activate any proposed regulation, because Congress is accountable to the people via periodic elections, while executive branch bureaucrats are not.

    Ken in Camarillo (c5b86d)

  384. Nebraska Senator ben Sasse:

    https://www.facebook.com/sassefornebraska/posts/593031420862025

    By the way, what does he advise republicans to do in the Nebraska primary?

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  385. Here is what he wrote:

    AN OPEN LETTER TO MAJORITY AMERICA

    TO: Those who think both leading presidential candidates are dishonest and have little chance of leading America forward:

    (…or, stated more simply)

    TO: The majority of America:

    Note: If you are one of those rare souls who genuinely believe Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are honorable people – if they are the role models you want for your kids – then this letter is not for you. Instead, this letter is for the majority of Americans who wonder why the nation that put a man on the moon can’t find a healthy leader who can take us forward together.

    I want to tell you about four unsolicited conversations from the Fremont Wal-Mart this morning:

    **Retired union Democrat meat-packer:
    “What the heck is wrong with that city where you work? Why can’t they give us a normal person? Is it really so hard?”

    Me: “Actually, it is for them – because most people in DC buy the nonsense that DC is the center of the world. You and I, despite our party differences, both agree that Fremont is the center.”

    Union Democrat (interrupting): “…Because this is where my grandkids are.”

    **Young evangelical mom:
    “I want to cry. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on almost every single thing – but I will vote for her before Trump. I could never tell my kids later that I voted for that man.”

    **Middle-aged Republican male (more political than the other folks):
    “It feels like the train-car to hell is accelerating. Why is DC more filled with weirdos and yet more powerful at the same time? How do we slow this down long enough to have a conversation about actually fixing our country?”

    **Trump supporter (again, unsolicited):
    “Please understand: I’m going to vote for him, but I don’t like him. And I don’t trust him – I mean, I’m not stupid. But how else can I send a signal to Washington?!”
    ________

    I’ve ignored my phone most of today, but the voicemail is overflowing with party bosses and politicos telling me that “although Trump is terrible,” we “have to” support him, “because the only choice is Trump or Hillary.”

    This open letter aims simply to ask “WHY is that the only choice?”

    Melissa and I got the kids launched on homework, so I’ve been sitting out by the river, reflecting on the great gap between what folks in my town are talking about, and what folks in the DC bubble are talking about.

    I trust the judgment of this farm town way more than I trust DC. And so I’d like to share a dozen-ish observations on these Wal-Mart and other conversations today:

    1. Washington isn’t fooling anyone — Neither political party works. They bicker like children about tiny things, and yet they can’t even identify the biggest issues we face. They’re like a couple arguing about what color to paint the living room, and meanwhile, their house is on fire. They resort to character attacks as step one because they think voters are too dumb for a real debate. They very often prioritize the agendas of lobbyists (for whom many of them will eventually work) over the urgent needs of Main Street America. I signed up for the Party of Abraham Lincoln — and I will work to reform and restore the GOP — but let’s tell the plain truth that right now both parties lack vision.

    2. As a result, normal Americans don’t like either party. If you ask Americans if they identify as Democrat or Republican, almost half of the nation interrupts to say: “Neither.”

    3. Young people despise the two parties even more than the general electorate. And why shouldn’t they? The main thing that unites most Democrats is being anti-Republican; the main thing that unites most Republicans is being anti-Democrat. No one knows what either party is for — but almost everyone knows neither party has any solutions for our problems. “Unproductive” doesn’t begin to summarize how messed up this is.

    4. Our problems are huge right now, but one of the most obvious is that we’ve not passed along the meaning of America to the next generation. If we don’t get them to re-engage — thinking about how we defend a free society in the face of global jihadis, or how we balance our budgets after baby boomers have dishonestly over-promised for decades, or how we protect First Amendment values in the face of the safe-space movement – then all will indeed have been lost. One of the bright spots with the rising generation, though, is that they really would like to rethink the often knee-jerk partisanship of their parents and grandparents. We should encourage this rethinking.

    5. These two national political parties are enough of a mess that I believe they will come apart. It might not happen fully in 2016 – and I’ll continue fighting to revive the GOP with ideas — but when people’s needs aren’t being met, they ultimately find other solutions.

    6. In the history of polling, we’ve basically never had a candidate viewed negatively by half of the electorate. This year, we have two. In fact, we now have the two most unpopular candidates ever – Hillary by a little, and Trump by miles (including now 3 out of 4 women – who vote more and influence more votes than men). There are dumpster fires in my town more popular than these two “leaders.”

    7. With Clinton and Trump, the fix is in. Heads, they win; tails, you lose. Why are we confined to these two terrible options? This is America. If both choices stink, we reject them and go bigger. That’s what we do.

    8. Remember: our Founders didn’t want entrenched political parties. So why should we accept this terrible choice?

    9. So…let’s have a thought experiment for a few weeks: Why shouldn’t America draft an honest leader who will focus on 70% solutions for the next four years? You know…an adult?

    (Two notes for reporters:

    **Such a leader should be able to campaign 24/7 for the next six months. Therefore he/she likely can’t be an engaged parent with little kids.

    **Although I’m one of the most conservative members of the Senate, I’m not interested in an ideological purity test, because even a genuine consensus candidate would almost certainly be more conservative than either of the two dishonest liberals now leading the two national parties.)

    10. Imagine if we had a candidate:

    …who hadn’t spent his/her life in politics either buying politicians or being bought

    …who didn’t want to stitch together a coalition based on anger but wanted to take a whole nation forward

    …who pledged to serve for only one term, as a care-taker problem-solver for this messy moment

    …who knew that Washington isn’t competent to micromanage the lives of free people, but instead wanted to SERVE by focusing on 3 or 4 big national problems,

    such as:

    A. A national security strategy for the age of cyber and jihad;

    B. Honest budgeting/entitlement reform so that we stop stealing from future generations;

    C. Empowering states and local governments to improve K-12 education, and letting Washington figure out how to update federal programs to adjust to now needing lifelong learners in an age where folks are obviously not going to work at a single job for a lifetime anymore; and

    D. Retiring career politicians by ending all the incumbency protections, special rules, and revolving door opportunities for folks who should be public “servants,” not masters.

    This really shouldn’t be that hard.

    The oath I took is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. In brief, that means I’m for limited government.

    And there is no reason to believe that either of these two national frontrunners believe in limiting anything about DC’s power.

    I believe that most Americans can still be for limited government again — if they were given a winsome candidate who wanted Washington to focus on a small number of really important, urgent things — in a way that tried to bring people together instead of driving us apart.

    I think there is room – an appetite – for such a candidate.

    What am I missing?

    More importantly, what are the people at the Fremont Wal-Mart missing?

    Because I don’t think they are wrong. They deserve better. They deserve a Congress that tackles the biggest policy problems facing the nation. And they deserve a president who knows that his or her job is not to “reign,” but to serve as commander-in-chief and to “faithfully execute” the laws – not to claim imperial powers to rewrite them with his pen and phone.

    The sun is mostly set on the Platte River — and the kids need baths. So g’night.

    Ben
    ‪#‎WeCanDoBetter‬
    ‪#‎GiveUsMoreChoices

    BS> What am I missing?

    firts of all:

    A name!


    I also don’t agree with all of his analysis.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  386. It seems likely that a constitutional amendment authorizing legislative veto could pass.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  387. And whoever this candidate is, he’s still going to have to take a position on amnesty/immigration. (I see he already is proposing a position on terrorism)

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  388. You don’t need a constitutional amendment on regulations. You just need a law.

    No regulations go into effect until passed into law by Congressandsigned by the president.

    You might also need rules changes in Congress.

    Otherwise you’ll just get a must pass omnibus bill.

    You could have rules changes that say 20% of either the House or Senate can force a regulation to be considered as a separate bill.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  389. Thanks for that, Sammy.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  390. Sammy, that’s really the wrong procedure – making regulations originate in Congress is a huge, huge problem for a variety of reasons. Restoring the legislative veto makes way more sense as a practical matter.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  391. Primary election rules are normally set by state law, not by the parties.

    The states have no constitutional right to interfere in a political party’s internal affairs.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  392. a friend of mine, has a serious series of suggestions,

    http://romesentinel.com/editorials/thoughts-on-political-recalibration/QBqped!BXQK1CgrzzFEYyT68558dA/

    not that frunnery

    narciso (732bc0)

  393. Some good news for a change!

    Gerald A (7c7ffb)

  394. 392 Sammy Finkelman: Excellent ideas, but one weakness. A bad Congress can just repeal the law that says no regulations go into effect until passed as a law. I grant the point that it wouldn’t be that easy for a bad Congress to repeal, because that action could be filibustered, and citizens could raise a big ruckus threatening to “throw the bums out” if Congress repeals the requirement.

    Ken in Camarillo (17aa36)

  395. You can’t write in a name in a Presidential election in November. You are voting for Electors. Your ballot probably says that in a smaller font. It will just simply spoil the ballot and will be ignored. To cast a write in vote, (which always remains alegal right) you must write in names of electors.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  396. @Ken in Camarillo There are anumber of things that don’t tet repealed because of precedent.

    One of them is the filibuster.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  397. I did get offended by Cruz quoting a verse from Psalms in a way that totally reversed the original context.

    I missed that. Which verse, and how did he get it wrong?

    Milhouse (87c499)

  398. #364: milhouse, let’s dispense with impeachment unless the D’s sweep the board in November. The R’s have been tested and they failed at every step.

    Failed at what? Impeaching 0bama?! What would be the point of doing that? The senate would be sure to acquit him, and he’d portray that acquittal as a vindication, and the impeachment as a badge of honor. It’s unethical for a prosecutor to indict someone knowing that he’s likely to be acquitted at trial; why do you think it’s not equally unethical to impeach someone in the same circumstances? At any rate, ethical or not, it’s politically stupid.

    But if Trump becomes president and orders the IRS to harass his enemies, he will be impeached and convicted, no matter which party controls each house.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  399. . I rather suspect these protectors civic virtue will find a way to continue doing what is best …. for them and their master. And my hypothetical is that Trump will be that master.

    Why would you think that? They loathe him just as they did Nixon, and will disobey and report his illegal orders.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  400. This would be very difficult, but it would solve a lot of problems:
    A Constitutional Amendment stating that the executive branch can propose regulations, but the proposed regulations have no effect until the Congress explicitly passes them as a law.

    We’ve discussed this before. I think this is unworkable, but what is workable is to allow either house of congress to disallow any regulation, within six months of its enactment, by a simple majority.

    No constitutional amendment would be needed for this, since the agencies’ power to make regulations doesn’t derive from the constitution but from statutes made by Congress, so another statute can change that. Something along the lines of RFRA, which explicitly attached its provisions to all previous laws, and presumptively attached them to all future laws, i.e. it instructs courts to interpret all future laws as if they incorporate RFRA unless they explicitly say they don’t. So Congress could do the same with this, saying that all future delegation of regulatory power to any agency shall be interpreted as being subject to the veto by a simple majority in either house, unless the act making that delegation says it isn’t.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  401. All that is needed is for the Supreme Court to undo it’s terrible decision in INS vs Chadha and allow the legislative veto.

    Not so. Chadha was about Congress trying to veto an inherently executive decision, not a regulation that the executive only has the power to make in the first place by congressional delegation.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  402. That’s the point, Kevin M. If Congress does not want to have to deal with 99% of regulations then we don’t need them.

    Not true. On the contrary, the vast majority of those regulations are both necessary and a complete waste of Congress’s time to deal with, so it delegates them to people hired to make them. Congress wants butter divided into various grades, but has neither the expertise nor the time to decide what they should be or how they should be defined, so it tells the Agriculture Department to do that. Congress makes the policy, and the executive does the grunt work. But since the executive is excercising Congress’s power, with the presumed consent of both houses, either house should be able to say no.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  403. I favor the executive branch proposing regulations, because they deal with the details of enforcing the current laws and see what needs adjustment. This also keeps the Congress from being buried in “minutia”. It is important however that Congress explicitly pass a law to activate any proposed regulation,

    It already does so, in advance. Which is why each house should have the power to say “that’s not what we meant”.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  404. Sammy, that’s really the wrong procedure – making regulations originate in Congress is a huge, huge problem for a variety of reasons.

    In principle they already do.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  405. A bad Congress can just repeal the law that says no regulations go into effect until passed as a law.

    Why would any Congress ever voluntarily give up a power it had?

    Milhouse (87c499)

  406. Milhouse: “Why would any Congress ever voluntarily give up a power it had?”

    That’s a strange question considering the topic. The Constitution gives the power to legislate to Congress only, yet Congress has given up some of that power to allow executive agencies to make regulations.

    The present system causes entropy to favor bad regulations: an agency that is unaccountable in practice makes regulations, which if bad, must be voided by the legislature. But if the legislature is obstructed (which is relatively easy), the bad regulation is not remedied.

    We must put entropy on the side of preventing regulations: we must require Congress must pass a law to activate a regulation.

    It is better that an executive agency that deals in a subject day to day propose the regulations, but it is critical that the proposed regulations do not have effect until Congress passes them as a law. Congress is directly accountable to the citizens, so Congress has more incentive to listen to citizens who have objections (or support) for proposed regulations.

    Ken in Camarillo (17aa36)

  407. Also: my point about entropy is illustrated by how hard it would be to pass the law Milhouse refers to. Certain groups like the system as it is so they can get the regulators to make regulations that they know are not popular with the citizens, knowing how hard it is to get Congress to void them. Imagine how hard those groups will work to obstruct Congress from making Milhouse’s law.

    Ken in Camarillo (17aa36)

  408. We can’t discount that Barack has a pen and a phone. And he’s always standing on the right side of history. Even when he’s standing on the wrong side of it—or the left side of it.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  409. Posted to the Mark Levin Fan Group on FB.

    Thanks for this!

    Brian Wolfe (d24986)

  410. There is a movement to do exactly what you want, and it is fully Constitutional. I urge you to investigate and sign up.
    If you have *any* questions, please ask. If I do not have the answer, I can get it.
    —-
    There’s a Third Option That Doesn’t Involve A Candidate
    >http://opinion.injo.com/2016/05/255880-nevertrump-neverhillary-nevermind-theres-a-third-option-that-doesnt-involve-a-candidate/

    Help us use that third option to restore the Constitution and reduce government. Sign the Convention of States Petition http://bit.ly/COSpetition

    Jerry Rowe (ed5d79)

  411. My favorite communist Nikita Khrushchev once said, “we will bury you.” He later said he was not making a threat, that the USSR would not invade the United States, but that the United States would destroy itself from within. He was right. Unfortunately for the USSR, while he was pointing one finger at us, three fingers were pointing back at him and his motherland. History is becoming clear. An abyss always awaits at the end of socialism and statism. Anyone want to move to Venezuela, Honduras, Greece or Russia? Also, China and many of the other socialistic European countries are nearing collapse.

    So why do I say Nikita was right about the United States? I am presenting the following facts about our country for your consideration:

    1) $19 trillion spending deficit.
    2) $200 trillion unfunded liabilities.
    3) 1.6 million pages of laws, regulations, unfunded mandates and executive orders during the George W. Bush and Obama administrations.
    4) Continuous undeclared wars since 2001.
    5) 3,000 page Constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS versus the 7 thousand word People’s Constitution and amendments.
    6) 59 million slaughtered unborn babies because 5 elderly men on SCOTUS interpreted the Constitution to include a fictitious right to privacy.
    7) Women and girls are now weary of pedophiles, perverts and rapists in public restrooms because of judicial activism.
    8) There will be worse tyranny to come if the Federal Government is allowed to continue to ignore the People’s Constitution and continues on the path to full socialism and statism.

    Yes, it is far past time that “we the people” enforce Constitutional Amendments IX and X and take back the power that our outlaw, runaway federal government has usurped.

    Some people believe the GOP will save the country. I did once when Goldwater ran for president in 1964, and I remained optimistic throughout much of the Reagan administration. Not so much since, and definitely not now after Cruz lost the presidential nomination. Out of the 125 Republican primary candidates for President in my lifetime, only 9 have been what I would call conservative. Those 9 are as follows: Cruz, Gingrich, Santorum, Keyes, Forbes, Reagan, Ashbrook, Goldwater and Taft. Also in my lifetime, there have been 12 Republican presidential candidates and, as you can see from the above list, only 2 were conservative – Reagan and Goldwater. Finally, only 1 out of 5 Republican presidents was conservative – Reagen. The batting average for all three categories is about 150. Not so good if you want to play in the major leagues. I would say Congress is even worse, and SCOTUS is batting a dismal 50.

    Fortunately, our founding fathers foresaw this predicament and gifted us with the solution called Convention of States. Convention of States is a convention called by the state legislatures for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution. The legislatures are given the power to do so under Article V of the Constitution.

    Convention of States Action, a project of Citizens for Self-Governance, is active in all 50 states, helping to insure that an Article V Convention of States will become a reality in the near future. To learn more about our project visit our website at:

    http://www.cosaction.com/?recruiter_id=1501881

    Please consider signing our online petition and signing up to be a volunteer. Help us use our Constitution to preserve our Constitution, and preserve our liberties. We owe it to our children and grandchildren.

    Michael Millikan (59d628)

  412. The Founders unanimously provided Article V option for the states to balance the federal government’s overreach. More than 400 such state applications have been filed over the years including the first couple that led to the bill of rights. As with all amendments to the constitution 38 states (both houses) are required for ratification. This is an enormously protective requirement that has only been reached 27 or so times. The COS Project application has already been passed by 7 states and 20 or more state houses. This application is limited to 3 areas: (a) Impose fiscal restraints on the Federal Government. (b) Limit the power and jurisdiction of the Federal Government. (c) Limit the terms of office for federal officials and members of Congress. Please sign E-Petition. Takes less than 20 seconds. http://www.cosaction.com/?recr… This will encourage your local state rep to become more involved in States’ rights.

    cliff wilkin (12489b)

  413. It is time for the two big parties to suffer some backlash for what they have caused. 2 parties are not enough. We finally need to begin a truer political system. One of inclusion as opposed to exclusion. Voices need to be heard, but most of all we, the Citizens of this AWESOME country, need to be able to find a trust worthy option for the BS the (Entitled Parties) seem tp think they can shove down our throats. Article V is the way to not only put a stop to the Tyranny, but also include EVERYONE no matter what party they affiliate with. It is an Ideal solution for a problem that seems to never get better.

    BRYAN SMITH (8809e0)

  414. The Founders inserted Article V in the constitution for such a time as this. It is high time we obeyed the Founders and use it

    Go to http://www.conventionofstates.com for more information

    Rick Bulow (890525)

  415. An Article V Convention of States is the US Constitution’s best answer/solution to reining in US Government tyranny.

    Bob Diamond (ff3a90)

  416. Article V part 2 of the U.S. Constitution is the remedy inserted to deal with a developing Tyrannical Federal Government. Electing a Conservative President will surely help, but it will not reverse the structural problems in Government that have developed over a long history of “Progress”. We believe we have the best implementation of Article V at conventionofstates.com.

    Donald J. Sutton (4ea656)

  417. In their wisdom, the drafters of the Constitution provided us with a remedy for abuses of federal power that are left unchecked by the federal judiciary. It is time for us to apply that remedy by invoking Article V’s procedure to call for a Convention of the States to propose amendments that will restore the original meaning of the Constitution. Visit here to sign the petition, watch video’s and learn, and sign up to volunteer for this grassroots movement: http://www.cosaction.com/?recruiter_id=1351201

    Gary Rosenbaum (e63f81)

  418. I have to agree with everyone else that Article V is a legitimate consideration we must push for right now. Government has battered the Constitution far too long, it’s time the citizens through the states push back on government with the Constitution. The answer is right there in front of us. As far as concerns of a runaway convention the answer is found in Article V itself spelling out what a convention can do – “purposes of proposing amendments”. It states nothing else! To claim anything else is to suggest the Constitution says other things it doesn’t say in other places. You either read it literally or you do not. You can not pick and choose which parts of the document you treat in such a way.

    Brandon James Benson (f6c594)

  419. A Convention of States is the only answer. America is in a mess. And it comes from both Republicans and Dems. We have to fix this. To give the power back to the states. There can be no other answer. Please. Join us. http://www.conventionofstates.com/

    Robyn Campbell (73e85f)

  420. Here is a video outlining how the Constitution founders feared what we now face today and how “We the People” can fix it.

    https://youtu.be/qmtfLVe_6_g

    Robert Spray (ce7802)

  421. Our federal government has overstepped its authority. The overreach by both the executive branch and the legislative branch had been supported by decisions made by the courts. Convention Of States has an article V application that will allow delegates to propose amendments to rein in all three branches of the federal government.
    To sign the petition, volunteer, or just to get more information visit http://www.conventionofstates.com

    Bill McDowell (1ed394)

  422. Here is a link that discusses the reasoning of the founding fathers of the need for an article V convention of the states. They foresaw a point in time that the branches of the federal government would collude together in making the power of the federal government overbearing onto the states and the people. At this time it is obvious congress, the executive, and the courts are all three working together to install supreme power in the federal government. With many court cases such as Heller and Citizens United boiling down to 5-4 decisions on basic rights in the fill of rights we are only one liberal Justice away from the court amending the constitution on a 5-4 vote. Once a court makes a decision it would take a generation if at all for the court to be changed such to have a different philosophy and even then they have to deal with the settled law issue. With an activist court we will need to fortify the current rights with amendments that the court can’t distort the constitution into something even more perverse to the original intent of the founders. Here is the link discussing some of the original thoughts of some of the founders on the need for the article V process for the states to be able to prevent a federal government takeover of the Republic.: http://www.newswithviews.com/Timothy/baldwin211.htm

    mmowry (42bda9)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.9373 secs.