Patterico's Pontifications

10/20/2016

Ted Cruz Should Have Been the One Debating Hillary Clinton Last Night

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:30 pm



Chris Wallace, who has received all sorts of (in my view largely unmerited) accolades for his performance last night, began the debate with one of the dumbest questions I have heard this election cycle:

First of all, where do you want to see the court take the country? And secondly, what’s your view on how the constitution should be interpreted? Do the founders’ words mean what they say or is it a living document to be applied flexibly, according to changing circumstances? In this segment, secretary Clinton, you go first. You have two minutes.

Think about that for a moment. Chris Wallace asks the candidates where they want the Supreme Court to “take the country.” But it’s not the Supreme Court’s job to take the country anywhere!

For a constitutional conservative, this was a hanging curveball over the fat part of home plate. Trump should have been able to knock it out of the park! So what does the bumbling Donald Trump do with it instead? Well, because everything is about him, he immediately thinks about the time one of the justices insulted him personally:

Well, first of all, it’s so great to be with you and thank you, everybody. The Supreme Court, it is what it is all about. Our country is so, so, it is just so imperative that we have the right justices. Something happened recently where Justice Ginsburg made some very inappropriate statements toward me and toward a tremendous number of people. Many, many millions of people that I represent and she was forced to apologize. And apologize she did. But these were statements that should never, ever have been made.

This pathetic and predictably narcissistic answer got me thinking: how would the debate have gone if Ted Cruz been on stage instead of Donald Trump?

He would have let Hillary Clinton have it dozens of times. He would have explained the O’Keefe videos in a pithy way, and tied them to Hillary effectively. He would have had a mastery of the details of the Wikileaks revelations, and hit her hard on that too.

And how might he have answered Wallaces’s little softball question about the Court? I imagine it might have gone a little something like this:

Thank you, Chris, and thank you to UNLV and everyone who took part in hosting this debate. It’s great to be here.

Chris, it’s not the job of the Supreme Court to “take the country” anywhere. It is the job of Congress to pass laws, and the job of the Court to interpret them according to the plain meaning of the words. If the Court followed that simple mandate, it would not be “taking the country” anywhere. It would be interpreting the law, which is its only function.

But Chris, I understand why you think it’s the Court’s job to “take the country” places, because far too often, that’s what the court does: ignore plain meaning and founding principles in favor of instituting the policy preferences of its elite members.

For example, in their Obamacare decisions, this handful of unelected judges rewrote the text of Obamacare twice in order to impose that failed law upon millions of Americans.

The first time, the court ignored federal law and magically transformed a statutory penalty into a tax. The second time, these robed Houdinis transmogrified a federal exchange into a exchange “established by the state.”

This is lawless conduct. Justice Scalia said, “we should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” and I agree.

Unelected judges have become legislators — and bad ones at that. They are lawless and they hide their prevarication in legalese. Our government was designed to be one of laws, not of men, and the transparent distortions of the court are disgraceful.

These justices are not behaving as umpires calling balls and strikes. They have joined a team, and it’s a team that’s hurting Americans across this country.

If those justices want to become legislators I invite them to resign and run for office. That’s the appropriate place to write laws: on the floor of Congress — not from that courtroom. And if you elect Hillary Clinton, you’ll just get more of the same leftist and elitist arrogance.

Ted Cruz would have wiped the floor with Hillary Clinton.

OK, I have to confess: I’m not imagining Ted Cruz saying those words, so much as I’m repeating Ted Cruz’s words. Virtually everything you just read is a quote or very close paraphrase of things Ted Cruz has already said. You can read much of it here.

Why do I bring this up? Because, pretty soon, after Trump loses, we’re going to have to reassess where this party has been and where it’s going, and answer the question: What do we do next?

And, I don’t know. Somehow, I think this little mental exercise I just took us through . . . it feels relevant to that question.

Don’t you think?

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

155 Responses to “Ted Cruz Should Have Been the One Debating Hillary Clinton Last Night”

  1. Considering the slow but resonant drip-drip-drop of wikileaks and Project Veritas, the relative length of this election season (to November 8) might be Trumps best friend in that allows for several November surprises.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  2. Cmon, Patterico.

    Cruz isn’t a real conservative, like Trump.

    Cruz doesn’t get along with people, the way Trump does.

    Most of all, Cruz isn’t a winner, like Trump is.

    But don’t worry. A certain H8r will be here shortly to pee all over your post.

    Simon Jester (c63397)

  3. yes guiliani and gingrich would have been more facile in their parrying but it wasn’t to be, wayne barrett largely saw to the demolition of the former’s reputation,

    narciso (d1f714)

  4. Yes, it is. I also regret not buying more Apple stock in the 90s.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  5. …we’re going to have to reassess where this party has been and where it’s going, and answer the question: What do we do next?”

    Huh? What’s with this ‘we?’ You left.

    And in case you haven’t caught on yet, ‘we’ have already begun work on what’s next: effectively neutering the modern conservative movement this cycle, marginalizing its stale, aging voices and soon, purging the party of the poison injected into it in 1964.

    “And that’s a good thing.” – Martha Stewart

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  6. Think about that for a moment. Chris Wallace asks the candidates where they want the Supreme Court to “take the country.” But it’s not the Supreme Court’s job to take the country anywhere!

    Right on, Patterico.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  7. I also regret not buying more Apple stock in the 90s.

    Sounds like you bought *some*! That’s good!

    Patterico (bcf524)

  8. Huh? What’s with this ‘we?’ You left.

    Once Trump is done, I’ll likely rejoin.

    Patterico (bcf524)

  9. I didn’t support Trump in the primaries but he WON. He may not be great but maybe, just maybe, he is a the next Reagan. I don’t know and neither does anyone else. I do KNOW Hillery would destroy the US – period. If she gets elected, you #nevertrumpers will be the useful idiots that V.I. Lenin talked about. We’ll see you in the gulag. I just hope I live long enough to see you experience the firing squad before I get mine!

    oldgeezer (9a3891)

  10. Oh come on!

    It wouldn’t have been Ted Cruz in the debate instead of Trump. It would have been Jeb Bush debating Hillary.

    Cruz would have been like all of us — sitting at home and yelling at the TV.

    fred-2 (ce04f3)

  11. @8 Once Trump is done, I’ll likely rejoin.

    Battle for the ‘Planet of the Apes’ eh. 😉

    “Don’t look for it, Taylor. You may not like what you find.” – Dr. Zaius [Maurice Evans] ‘Planet of the Apes’ – 1968

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  12. Yeah, it’s a pity the great constitutional champion and natural born Canadian didn’t get his chance to be the next POTUS.

    I mean, his defence of outlawing dildos in the debates would have been epic!

    http://www.menstrait.com/article/ted-cruz-dildo-argument-is-beyond-parody/

    LBascom (0e2db9)

  13. Dildos are important enough to talk about only to alt.cuckoo-cuckoo-cuckoo.

    nk (dbc370)

  14. Marco Rubio would have been the most electable.
    I realize the word “electability” is like kryptonite to some of our friends, but who has ever visited the Barry Goldwater Presidential Library? (LOL)

    Definitely Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina, Jindal, Walker, and Christie would have mopped the floor with illary in the debates.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  15. I’m surprised you can live with the fact that he chose to kiss the… ring of The Donald.

    But I can’t say I’m surprised he sold that one so cheap (talk about crappy timing!). This is how politicians molt their larval forms – keeping their jobs by selling their lofty principles.

    As for the question, he’d give her a fight, at least. More than Fingers could. But Cruz has his own defects she’d play.

    Passerby (8746ab)

  16. Cruz, being the son of a natural born American is as natural born an American as me. And unlike Fauxcahontas, I actually have some American Indian blood in my veins.

    John Hitchcock (d1c55c)

  17. yes, that’s a silly argument, there are plenty of us born candidates, lurch, yeargh, red queen not with a farthing,

    narciso (d1f714)

  18. Yeah, I’m sure the democrats wouldn’t have bothered addressing dildos and sealed immigration records. Just like Rubio would never have addressed anything that came out of Wikileaks.

    Either of them would have just skated past the Clinton machine…

    LBascom (0e2db9)

  19. I’m surprised you can live with the fact that he chose to kiss the… ring of The Donald.

    “Live with”? Yeah. I made fun of him for it, and he deserved it. But he’s still a solid conservative and the best of the likely 2020 field as far as I can tell.

    Patterico (bcf524)

  20. Cruz, having a natural born US mother, is a natural born US citizen. Immigration records are irrelevant once the nationality of the mother is known.

    John Hitchcock (d1c55c)

  21. You keep telling yourself that Hitchcock. I’ll pretend it doesn’t sound silly.

    LBascom (0e2db9)

  22. well they are all too familiar with the former, and the latter is how they prosper,

    narciso (d1f714)

  23. Cruz is a local phenomenon. A U.S. Senator representing Texas in a way Texans like. His chances of a national role are slim. Possibly a Court of Appeals judge. Maybe, just maybe, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Not Chief Justice until he has served an apprenticeship in one of the aforementioned positions. That’s about it. Ask me why.

    nk (dbc370)

  24. Get over it!!!! Cruz lost – end of story. By the way, John Hitchcock is 100% correct. Everything else is BS according to the Supreme Court (almost 100 years ago) and English Common Law that was adopted by the founding fathers as the basis for our laws.

    oldgeezer (9a3891)

  25. What a terrific post, Patterico. And yet it makes me all the more depressed to be so pointedly reminded of what could have been.

    Dana (d17a61)

  26. LBascom, we realize that The Donald is close to your heart, but that’s the problem.
    We need a nominee who is close to people’s brains.

    There’s something to be said for speaking coherent sentences with noun-verb agreement.
    Oh, and you know, being able to prosecute the case against Secretary of Mistakes Clinton.
    She’s got a smorgasboard of mistakes to pounce on … Benghazi, Libya, Syria, Russia, Iran, China, North Korea … and Wikileaks emails, obstruction of justice, perjury, mishandling of national security documents.

    Exclaiming, “She’s a nasty woman!” doesn’t exactly paint the portrait for the LIV American voters.

    Talking about beauty contestants when one should be talking about the battle for Mosul is a sure sign that you’ve hired the wrong guy.

    Characters in a Scorsese film are entertaining, but do you really want Joe Pesci debating on stage when the world’s on fire?
    Well, to answer the question, yeah, obviously you do.

    Sad!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  27. Cruz is a local phenomenon. A U.S. Senator representing Texas in a way Texans like. His chances of a national role are slim.

    I ended up on Team Cruz this time around (he was my fourth choice after, in order, Walker, Fiorina, and Rubio), but I think for 2020 I’m getting an early jump on the Tom Cotton bandwagon. But who knows how things might change.

    JVW (6e49ce)

  28. We keep repetitively repeating the same repeated stuff.

    Cruz and most others would have been a better candidate and better president,
    Though they would all get trashed by the media as well.

    But it doesn’t matter now. And I am not sure it will matter in the future if Clinton wins.
    The whole federal bureaucracy will be weaponized, like the DA in Milwaukee and the one county in Texas that hunted Delay and attacked Perry for doing his job,
    The feds acting that way overtime, with the FBI weaponized as well.

    It will be a wild time…

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  29. really after a generation of donahue oprah and the spew, how intellectual do you find the american people to be,

    narciso (d1f714)

  30. Yes, Tom Cotton.
    If he escapes the reign of terror.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  31. theresa may, the last musical chair left standing after gove knifed johnson, seems intent on provoking the russian bear, because that’s what brexit was about,

    narciso (d1f714)

  32. 26- trump didn’t start the fire. That would be on the professional politicians you can’t quit. Trump the man isn’t close to my heart, finally having a candidate that actually represents my interests as an American citizen instead of these philosopher king tyrants that want to serve the globalist agenda over the will of the the American people is what gets my groove on.

    LBascom (0e2db9)

  33. Fact is, this is what it looks like when the republican actually fights back, and as usual the conservative reaction is to be offended and outraged. That is why Romney lost, he wouldn’t come off his pedestal and actually fight back. And the great warrior hero before him, that forbade his campaign from even using Obama’s middle freak’in name lest it sully the great and shiny halo no conservative dare bring shame upon by FIGHTING BACK!.

    This whole country is awash in estrogen…

    LBascom (0e2db9)

  34. LBascom,

    Since you’re so easily swindled by con artists, can I offer you a partnership in a bridge? (LOL)

    If you don’t win the election, you don’t get to govern. It’s that simple.
    And Trump can’t win the election.
    He knows very little about foreign policy, the Constitution, or politics.
    There were so many openings during the debates where people were screaming at their TV sets, “Hey, Guido, say X, Y, and Z!
    But sadly, Trump didn’t realize when the iron was hot.

    This was an election begging to be won by a Republican.
    All it would take was someone who could stand on that stage and prosecute the case against illary.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  35. You have a strange definition of “fact”, one that can’t be found in any dictionary.

    John Hitchcock (d1c55c)

  36. But it doesn’t matter now. And I am not sure it will matter in the future if Clinton wins.

    Well sure it does. It matters what lesson is learned from this election, right?

    The first step is admitting that nominating Donald Trump was a fundamental error.

    We’ll cross to the next step once we’re past the first.

    Patterico (bcf524)

  37. LBascom,
    Yeah, that effin’ Trump is a fighter! (LOL)

    It doesn’t matter how tough a Guido he is; he just doesn’t have the intellect or the knowledge to win the fight.

    It’s like the story of the Tortoise and the Hare.
    The rabbit was sexy and built for speed, yet lacked discipline and strategy.

    Guess who won?
    Ask the five year old kid who lives next door.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  38. you think people want to hear more about mosul, they’ve been hearing about it, for thirteen years, along with fallujah, ramadi, baghdad, baquba, they want it over, and they want to know why the blood that has been shed all these years seemingly are for not,

    narciso (d1f714)

  39. “Oh, and you know, being able to prosecute the case against Secretary of Mistakes Clinton.
    She’s got a smorgasboard of mistakes to pounce on … Benghazi, Libya, Syria, Russia, Iran, China, North Korea … and Wikileaks emails, obstruction of justice, perjury, mishandling of national security documents.”

    Trump talked about that stuff at the debates. He talks about it all the time at his rallies. Just because you obsess on the media’s talking points and Trumps responses to those and not that other stuff is not his fault.

    The man doesn’t do the same hand full of talking points and only the same hand full of talking points like you are used to from a candidate, he hits everything. That’s who he is. Your assertion anyone else doing the same old same old would be beating Hillary is delusional.

    But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

    LBascom (0e2db9)

  40. It was Carter who first called Trump malleable. If Cruz felt strongly about these things his place is out on the stump directing policy toward the election of Donald Trump.

    papertiger (021e95)

  41. how does iowahawk put it ‘the press likes to cover an issue, with a pillow’ take san bernardino, that happened because jeh johnson shut down phil haney’s inquiry into the tabligh network, probably due to pressure from gulf state donors like the ones who chipped into red queen’s foundation,

    what do they do retroactively, try to find a skeleton key into everyone’s cell phone, as if they hadn’t enough information in the first place, they just weren’t willing to look at it,

    narciso (d1f714)

  42. “there were so many openings during the debates where people were screaming at their TV sets, “Hey, Guido, say X, Y, and Z!”
    But sadly, Trump didn’t realize when the iron was hot.”

    The people screaming that are not the target audience Trump was trying to reach. Those people have already made up their minds. His performance was crafted to reach those still on the fence.

    Were I you I wouldn’t give up my bridge selling job to become a campaign adviser.

    LBascom (0e2db9)

  43. LBascom, Trump couldn’t put three coherent sentences together.
    Exclaiming, “But what about Libya!?” is not exactly a prosecution of the case.
    The debates were a disaster.

    The race is over. It’s just a matter of tallying up the final score on Nov 8.

    The thing you have to realize about debates is you hope that your guy’s performance impresses people who were either on the fence or weren’t planning to vote for your candidate.
    Preaching to the choir is not good enough to win.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  44. “The race is over”

    I wish I had a dollar for every time a conservative has said that!

    “Preaching to the choir is not good enough to win.”

    That was my point.

    LBascom (0e2db9)

  45. like the song goes ‘you can’t always get what you want, but if you try real hard you might get what you need’ with a media blackout, you have to hint at things they don’t want people to know,

    narciso (d1f714)

  46. What? I missed it! I missed Halloween too?

    papertiger (021e95)

  47. you can’t count the cubs out, so nothing it set.

    narciso (d1f714)

  48. yes, the point was to show that ginsberg is no impartial arbiter, sotomayor revealed that recently as well,

    narciso (d1f714)

  49. seriously, you marveled over alex baldwin’s phoned in impression, earlier this week,

    narciso (d1f714)

  50. I would like to think that people respond to high toned intellectual argument, but then I recall churchill’s complaint about democracy,

    narciso (d1f714)

  51. dodgers may have run over a black cat, on the way to practice,

    narciso (d1f714)

  52. The first time, the court ignored federal law and magically transformed a statutory penalty into a tax.

    You’re still wrong about this one. The court didn’t transform anything; it merely recognised that what stood before its eyes was a tax, not a penalty.

    The only reason anyone imagined it was a penalty was that Congress had said so; and the Court’s long-standing precedent is that Congress lies, and that when it does the courts refuse to accept them. Do you honestly want the Court to have reversed that precedent, and declared that henceforth Congress can bypass the constitution any time it likes by simply lying about what it is doing?! I don’t think you want that.

    The precedent the Court cited was a case where Congress had imposed an unconstitutional penalty and called it a tax, and the Court struck it down, declaring that if it walked like a penalty and quacked like a penalty it was a penalty. Do you disagree with that precedent? Do you wish that the court in that case had upheld the “tax” because Congress said it was one?!

    I’ll bet you agree with that decision, and applaud the court for seeing through Congress’s lies. But you can’t have it both ways. If an unconstitutional penalty remains one even when Congress calls it a tax, then an constitutional tax remains one even when Congress calls it a penalty. And the precedent remains safe for the next time Congress lies.

    The decision also contained the “poison pill” that the tax must always remain affordable, so that for many people it will be a rational decision to pay it rather than buy insurance. Congress and the administration are on notice that if it’s ever raised to the point where people are effectively forced to buy insurance, it will be unconstitutional. That’s a good precedent to have.

    Milhouse (40ca7b)

  53. it was illegal either way, but it served the purpose like the shifting rationales re retaining roe, ‘its a floor wax and a dessert topping’

    narciso (d1f714)

  54. LBascom,

    Trump only satisfied the choir; he didn’t win enough new converts — that’s my point.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  55. and you can’t afford to use your insurance, otherwise you end up in the same quicksand red squaw said was the reason for supporting the program,

    narciso (d1f714)

  56. The problem isn’t that DJT exists, its that he exists in a timeframe with HRC. NeverTrumpers will not be responsible for the election of Hillary, her own voters will be the agents in that regard. But those who find the Presidency of Trump more odious than the Presidency of Clinton bear the burden of being responsible for his loss by not voting for him. (They will also be responsible for Johnson’s and Stein’s loss as well as McMullin’s, but their chance of success never went above zero to begin with.)

    The long and tortuous logic that allows anyone to pretend that somehow conservatism (and, by extension, America) is better off under a Hillary Clinton presidency is frankly akin to saying that one is better off with the Devil, a well-known, wholly evil and venal being, than the being behind door number 2 making all those weird noises. But some do and rather stridently so, fervently hoping that a collective disgust with its excesses will usher in a new age of devotion to the Founding Father’s principles.

    While I would welcome such a return to limited government, I just can not see it happening. The lure of “free” stuff (paid for by taxpayers) is too much for almost anyone to resist. The tentacles of subsidies, tax credits, assistance and outright payments to a majority of the public makes the idea of reducing government impossible. According to statements, neither Hillary or Donald seem to want to try either. And why should they? No president has ever permanently reduced the size of the government, and they can only do so at a loss of their own power and prestige.

    Living as I do in California, it really matters not for whom I cast my vote for. My state will go 60-40 for Clinton and she will more than likely have the Electoral votes for victory before the polls close here. My state is too invested in the plantation system of the Federal government to ever think of reducing its spread. For the first time in my life, since I first voted in 1988, I didn’t vote for a presidential candidate. (Yes, I am accepting the responsibility of my fractional part for Donald Trump’s loss.) I can not vote for either of the two senatorial candidates either, as they are also wholly lacking in anything that resembles humility, concern for those outside of the disability flavor of the month, and a respect for the Constitution they swear to uphold.

    I do not think conservatism will rise, Phoenix-like, from the ashes of defeat. Conservatism is dead. It was wounded when mailing lists of donors and phone numbers of supporters became commodities to trade among elites who do not have to live under the rules they establish. It bled when Unruh’s rule “Money is the mother’s milk of politics” became not a opprobrium, but a mission statement. Conservatism died when it did not say, “We need to reduce the power of government, and it will start here.”

    The only question left is what trappings we will keep, Mrs Havisham-like, as the republic decays into an oligarchy.

    MrScience_ (aebf61)

  57. that’s certainly part of it, it’s also a generation of mind arson, sowed in the public schools, under various labels, ignite, now common core, which is constructivist, not knowledge based, what robin’s blog has tried to ascertain,

    narciso (d1f714)

  58. “Money is the mother’s milk of politics.”

    Really?

    This election must be an outlier.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  59. actually the expenditures were relatively light, perhaps 300-400 million on red queen’s side, but that isn’t the problem, dr. evil agrees with you btw,

    narciso (d1f714)

  60. MrScience, you need to think outside the box. I’m voting for Stein and Sanchez – they’re the anti-establishment candidates.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  61. oldgeezer, it’s sweet that you think you can blame NeverTrump for Trump’s own failures and the fact that you put a clown like Trump on the stage to pratfall for Hillary.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  62. But he’s still a solid conservative and the best of the likely 2020 field as far as I can tell.

    ‘Solid’ as slush along the shores of Lake Ontario. There’s a ‘Senator Perry’ in his future. Oops.

    With apologies to Tom Lehrer:

    Gather round while I sing you of Canadian Cruz,
    A man whose allegiance is ruled by expedience;
    Call him unprincipled for changing his views,
    “Principles,schminzables” coos Canadian Cruz

    Don’t say that he’s hypocritical,
    Say rather that he’s quite political;
    “Once the endorsement is up, in four years it’s old news!
    Memories are short,” coos Canadian Cruz

    Some have harsh words for his bait-and-switch ruse,
    But some say their attitude should be one of gratitude;
    Like the wife and the father; their honor abused,
    So easily betrayed by Canadian Cruz

    To become a conservative hero;
    Just show Texans you’ll stand up for zero;
    “In Calgary ‘oder’ Houston, I have proved I can lose,
    And I’ll prove it again,” coos Canadian Cruz.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  63. The republican party has left the cliff and will be buried next to the whigs.

    mg (31009b)

  64. Anyone who thinks Trump was/is a good candidate at this stage will never be convinced otherwise.

    If what is now left of the republic goes bananas left under the reign of terror of queen Hillary there will be no opportunity to implement any lesson learned,
    Whether it was the right one or not.

    Government is not the solution to the world’s ills, whether one is a Marxist or conservative,
    Government is a tool of the culture, the beliefs and values of a people, what they/we value as the highest good. A form of government can work well or not so well as designed to advance the values of the culture.

    You and others think this is about what lesson to learn for the future,
    some of us think Clinton represents an existential threat, and any future is only after a “Dark Ages”.

    The culture would rather believe lies of how they can have their cake and eat it too,
    so they get the government they/we deserve.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  65. Clinton IS an existential threat to the US. The problem arises when you realize Trump IS an existential threat to the US and to Conservatism (his being neither Conservative nor Republican but lumping himself in with us).

    John Hitchcock (d1c55c)

  66. Cruz was probably the only candidate in the GOP who wanted to explain constitutional principles as part of his campaign. Maybe Rubio somewhat. I can’t imagine Kasich or Bush giving a response similar to the above.

    Gerald A (a48c32)

  67. I don’t see Trump as an existential threat.
    He is an ego bent on idolizing himself,
    No other purpose or ideology.
    Clintons, Obama, and the Dems are for doing away with the rule of law and establishing a de facto monarchy/totalitarian state where they control everything, including your values when it comes to operating a business or speaking dissenting views.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  68. He’a had some notions about trade and burden sharing. Going back to the 80s.

    narciso (d1f714)

  69. It’s fairly pointless to speculate how someone else would’ve done in a debate. Cruz lost. The majority of GOP voters opted for a clown instead. After the election, the same GOP voters will still be there, ready to vote for the next nativist/populist doofus.

    WarrenPeese (3f86f4)

  70. We were sold the last two tomato cans because they were electable.

    narciso (d1f714)

  71. Sorry, Ted. We should have took your efforts more seriously in regards to one particular topic of grave conern:
    https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s–KYEoA3e6–/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/mbovd8iiiuducvzzdrbm.jpg

    urbanleftbehind (986c60)

  72. Trump and the media together with republican infighting defeated Cruz in the primaries the same way Hillary and the media and continued republican infighting is defeating Trump now. While Cruz would have been much more articulate he would be facing the same barrage we’ve experienced since the Clintons first came to Washington 24 years ago.

    crazy (d3b449)

  73. What defeated Cruz in the primaries is his name. alt.we-hate-mexicans was never going to vote for him. Cruz further enabled Trump by sucking up the lion’s share of the conservative vote while Jeb had sucked up the lion’s share of the money. This drove out Walker and marginalized Kasich, the guys with the best chance. Rubio? Quien sabe? Could he have passed as Italian? 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  74. The Wall sstreet Journal has a good editorial today that dealt with this debate question:

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillarys-new-constitution-1477005997. It may be behind a paywall (I think the first time somebody not logged in clicks on it, the link works, and somebody can get alink by doing a Google search)

    Oct. 20, 2016 7:26 p.m. ET

    Donald Trump is no legal scholar, but at Wednesday’s presidential debate he showed a superior grasp of the U.S. Constitution than did Hillary Clinton. Amid the overwrought liberal fainting about Mr. Trump’s bluster over accepting the election result (see below), Mrs. Clinton revealed a view of the Supreme Court that is far more threatening to American liberty.

    Start with her answer to moderator Chris Wallace’s question about the role of the courts. “The Supreme Court should represent all of us. That’s how I see the Court,” she said. “And the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on our behalf of our rights as Americans.”

    Where to begin with that one? The Supreme Court doesn’t—or shouldn’t—“represent” anyone. In the U.S. system that’s the job of the elected branches. The courts are appointed, not elected, so they can be nonpartisan adjudicators of competing legal claims.

    Mrs. Clinton is suggesting that the Court should be a super-legislature that vindicates the will of what she calls “the American people,” which apparently excludes “the powerful.” But last we checked, the Constitution protects everyone, even the powerful. The law is supposed to protect individual rights, not an abstraction called “the people.”

    The Democrat went downhill from there, promising to appoint judges who would essentially rewrite the First and Second Amendments. Asked about the 2008 Heller decision that upheld an individual right to bear arms, Mrs. Clinton claimed to support “reasonable regulation.” She said she criticized Heller because it overturned a District of Columbia law intended merely “to protect toddlers from guns and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them.”

    Toddlers had nothing to do with it. What Mrs. Clinton calls “reasonable” was an outright ban on handguns. The D.C. law allowed the city’s police chief to award some temporary licenses—but not even the police officer plaintiff in the case could persuade the District to let him register a handgun to be kept at his home.

    [By the way, if Vincent Foster killed himself with his own gun, he would have violated that law. It was “identified’ from a picture, as being within the realm of possibility a gun his grandfather had owned, but his wife didn’t know anything about such a gun – but she did know another one, which she got out of a closet.

    In spite of Hillary Clinton’s penhant for personal touches and showing how she is affected by a law, she never mentinos Vincent Foster here in connection with gun control, although Dems like to cite suicide prevention as a reason for limiting gun ownership. If someone died from a drug overdose, or smoking, they invariably mention it from time to time. Not this. What’s even more interesting is that nobody else does. Hillary Clinton does not want people to realize that Vincent Foster’s possession of a gun in DC would have been ipso facto illegal, as no new guns could be brought into the city and legally reggistered after 1986, with maybe a few special exceptions, which he probably didn’t get, and if he got it that’s another problem.

    You notice here Hillary does not describe what that DC law that was overrturned by Heller actually said, but it would have made it illegal for Vincent Foster to possess a gun within the onfines of teh District of Columbia. And he did possess such a gun, just not the one that killed him. – SF]

    Anyone who did lawfully possess a gun had to keep it unloaded and either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, ensuring it would be inoperable and perhaps useless for self-defense. As Antonin Scalia wrote for the Heller majority, “Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District’s handgun ban.”

    If Mrs. Clinton supports such gun restrictions, then she thinks an individual’s right to bear arms is meaningless. If the Justices she appoints agree with her, then they can gradually turn Heller into a shell of a right, restriction by restriction, even without overturning the precedent.

    Then there’s the First Amendment, which Mrs. Clinton wants to rewrite by appointing Justices she said would “stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system.”

    Citizens United is the 2010 Supreme Court decision that found that unions and corporations can spend money on political speech—in that specific case for a movie that was critical of Mrs. Clinton. The Democrat seems to take the different view that while atomized individuals might have the right to criticize politicians, heaven forbid if they want to band together to do it as a political interest group.

    As for “dark” money, she certainly knows that territory. Does money get any darker than undisclosed Clinton Foundation donations from foreign business magnates tied to uranium concessions in Kazakhstan?

    There is at least one right that Mrs. Clinton did suggest she believes to be absolute—to an abortion, at any time during pregnancy right up until birth. She claimed merely to oppose the repeal of Roe v. Wade, which allows some regulation of late-term abortions. But she somehow overlooked Gonzales v. Carhart , the 2007 decision that upheld a legislative ban on so-called partial-birth abortion.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the Carhart opinion that ruled such restrictions are consistent with Roe and the Constitution. Mrs. Clinton kept invoking “the life and the health of the mother” to justify her opposition to any limit on abortion, but Carhart found the life of the mother can be sufficient.

    To put all this another way, Mrs. Clinton believes there is no restriction on abortion she would ever support, and there is no restriction on gun rights she would ever oppose. Carhart, Citizens United and Heller were 5-4 decisions, and Mrs. Clinton wants each of them to be litmus tests for her Supreme Court appointments. She mocks Mr. Trump for saying he won’t abide by the election result, but she wants to rewrite the Constitution to fit her own political views.

    Sammy Finkelman (22cc00)

  75. 73. Cogent points all, but if anything Rubio would get even less of alt.wehatemexicans because he was clearly more of a Latin Grammy/Univision-friendly kind of Cuban pol.

    urbanleftbehind (c8adc7)

  76. MrScience_ (aebf61) — 10/20/2016 @ 9:50 pm

    (They will also be responsible for Johnson’s and Stein’s loss as well as McMullin’s, but their chance of success never went above zero – about 3% or 4% – to begin with.)

    Fixed that for you. (If the election got thrown into the House of Represenatives)

    Sammy Finkelman (22cc00)

  77. Milhouse (40ca7b) — 10/20/2016 @ 9:31 pm

    Congress and the administration are on notice that if it’s ever raised to the point where people are effectively forced to buy insurance, it will be unconstitutional. That’s a good precedent to have.

    But why so?

    “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”

    Maybe the issue is not that it could be a crippling tax, but a conditional tax.

    Bit anyway it’s really politically impossible, although Hillary Clinton is the kind of person to maybe try to create an effective penalty. It won’t pass Congress, though. So the next thing is expanded Medicare. And te republicans do not have any well thought out ideas – they just have many plans, smme of them 75% of the way there. Few people realie that insurance itself is a large part of the problem. Things have to brought to the point where it is in the self interest of pproviders – at least of diagnostic tests – to advertise prices.

    Sammy Finkelman (22cc00)

  78. Billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel is getting ostracized for supporting Trump.

    http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2016/10/21/peter-thiel-reportedly-planning-a-speech-on-his.html?ana=yahoo

    Gerald A (a48c32)

  79. I don’t doubt Cruz would have been better at the debate. But the fact is the media would have defined him for the electorate, because most voters don’t have any idea who he is. The media would have run the same “Republican = Hitler” script they ran successfully in the last two presidential elections, not counting this one. And Cruz would never have had the chance to make the counter-case because the mic would be turned off when he tried. Just like Romney and just like McCain.

    If Cruz runs in 2020, the media will be “what a monster, why can’t the Republicans find moderates like McCain, Romney, and Trump”?

    What you guys are all forgetting is that most voters are not interested in conservative principles.

    I want to see more conservative principles implemented. So do you. To do that you need to win elections. More machine politics and less ideological purity. The people who help win elections get bones thrown to them. That’s how we got gay marriage and men in women’s bathrooms, and how we’re going to lose gun rights and the ability to publicly advocate for our ideas, which will be declared “hate speech” and in-kind political contributions; at least if all goes wrong in November.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  80. #78

    Billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel is getting ostracized for supporting Trump.

    I overstated that. The biggest players are not cutting ties with Thiel but several people have announced they are. So people are trying to get him ostracized.

    Gerald A (a48c32)

  81. From that pro-Trump rag National Review:

    Last December, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post wrote a column stating, “If Ted Cruz is the Republican Party’s cure for Donald Trump, the antidote may be worse than the poison.” Jonathan Chait tweeted in February, “I also think Trump would be a better president than [Marco] Rubio, and that and most Republicans voters [would] be better presidents than Rubio.” Matt Yglesias of Vox.com wrote an entire column titled, “Why I’m more worried about Marco Rubio than Donald Trump.” Yglesias has now updated his piece and admitted he was wrong — but that didn’t stop Elias Isquith of Salon.com from arguing that Yglesias let Ted Cruz off the hook: Yes, Trump would do damage to the country, Isquith wrote, but Cruz’s policies are far worse. Henry Zeffman of The New Statesman wrote that Cruz was more “terrifying” than Trump.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  82. Cruz was my guy too…*sigh*. As my dear departed mother used to say: If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

    JustMikeS (a67dba)

  83. All that means is that Democrats were more scared of Cruz and Rubio than they were of Trump.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  84. …we’re going to have to reassess where this party has been and where it’s going, and answer the question: What do we do next?

    First we have to understand what we are up against and how difficult the task as long as politics is the easiest way to get rich and stay rich.

    crazy (d3b449)

  85. Spengler has some notes to consider, re real news. I know once upon a time he was a larouchote, but he got better.

    narciso (d1f714)

  86. All that means is that Democrats were more scared of Cruz and Rubio than they were of Trump.

    Exactly. For two reasons:
    1. Hillary could defeat Trump. As she is doing now. Cruz or Trump would have defeated Hillary.
    2. Even if by some fluke Trump wins, he is identical to Hillary on social issues and big government. A consolation prize. Cruz or Rubio would have slaughtered the left’s sacred cows.

    Thanks, Trumpkins!

    nk (dbc370)

  87. My thoughts exactly, nk

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  88. That should have been “Cruz or *Rubio*”.🍋

    nk (dbc370)

  89. @nk, Chuck: Where is your evidence that voters are against big government?

    Further, voters against gay marriage. Voters are against men in women’s bathrooms too. Even Democrat office holders and voters. How did we get it?

    Party of Stupid gets cause and effect backward as usual?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  90. Since we are a couple weeks past of a holiday I still will call Columbus Day, is this a milestone or has this already happened (all 4 GOP candidates as Paisans) ad infinitum in NY and Rhode Island:

    http://observer.com/2016/10/pnj-poll-who-will-you-support-in-the-2017-gop-primary-for-nj-governor/

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  91. Leaked Email Shows Huma Abedin Admitting That Hillary Clinton’s Morocco Trip was a Pay-for-Play for a $12 Million Donation, and that Hillary “Created This Mess and She Knows It”

    Quick, Dustin, you should elect her!!!

    Colonel Haiku (ab264c)

  92. The Trumpers sure are getting desperate. Rather than admit they’re backing the biggest loser the Republican party has ever nominated, they’re attacking anyone insisting the emperor has no clothes.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  93. @nk, Chuck: Where is your evidence that voters are against big government?

    I don’t remember ever saying voters were against big government. Why would I have to produce evidence of that?

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  94. Well some are like Roger stone, some like sessions are not.

    narciso (d1f714)

  95. Thats one way to meet and be enchanted by #4. Maybe he should have micro-targeted Vietnamese and Colombians in the same manner.

    http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/hindus-and-trump-rallied-together-in-a-xenophobic-fever-1787862963

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  96. The letter recalls how podesta and schultz, savaged him 30 years ago.

    narciso (d1f714)

  97. What does it take to kill gawker, and it’s appendages.

    narciso (d1f714)

  98. Gabriel likes to ascribe straw men that he can kvetch about. Or is it “noodge”? But I’ll bite.

    As a general rule, voters that write checks to the U.S. Treasury are against big government. Voters that get checks from the U.S. Treasury are for big government. And that second group is pretty big — ranging from homeless welfare recipients to government employees to college professors and administrators whose salaries are paid by tax money, Title IX grants, and government-guaranteed student loans. In other words, the Democrat base.

    Am I right, Gabriel?

    nk (dbc370)

  99. The campaign to surrender Colombia , the peace accords, was much like modi and brexit.

    narciso (d1f714)

  100. MD in Philly,
    Louix XVI was not about the destruction of France, he was just a total self-absorbed boob. But he presided over the destruction of France. Donald Trump is, likewise, a total self-absorbed boob.

    John Hitchcock (4edfdd)

  101. The Trumpers sure are getting desperate. Rather than admit they’re backing the biggest loser the Republican party has ever nominated, they’re attacking anyone insisting the emperor has no clothes.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71) — 10/21/2016 @ 8:56 am

    I supported and voted for Cruz. Now I’m supporting Trump. If you mean by having no clothes that he’s indistinguishable from Clinton policy-wise, I regard that as semi-psychotic. I don’t know what you mean by getting desperate either. Maybe you mean people who still insist he was the optimal nominee, which does not describe most people who will be voting for him.

    I do think he would have won (assuming he loses) had it not been for the October surprise stuff.

    Gerald A (a48c32)

  102. The man just can’t help it. Did you catch any of the Al Smith dinner? He got booed by altar boys.

    nk (dbc370)

  103. Exactly gerald, redvquuen is more of the bourbon mentality.

    narciso (d1f714)

  104. If you mean by having no clothes that he’s indistinguishable from Clinton policy-wise, I regard that as semi-psychotic.

    I never said that, so I have no idea why you’d attribute such a position to me.

    Maybe you mean people who still insist he was the optimal nominee,

    No, mean the consistent claims that the NeverTrumpers are actively working to elect Hillary.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  105. Like going to war with russia, or bluffing same.

    narciso (d1f714)

  106. I do think he would have won (assuming he loses) had it not been for the October surprise stuff.

    The October surprise stuff is largely of his own making. Either Trump didn’t think the opposition would get any dirt on him, or he refused to get out in front of it. Neither option speaks well of Trump’s abilities.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  107. @Chuck:No, mean the consistent claims that the NeverTrumpers are actively working to elect Hillary.

    At least one of them here has said he’d vote for Hillary. Not all NeverTrumpers, perhaps. But what does the NeverTrump label even mean? Doesn’t it mean that any outcome is preferable to electing Trump? And electing Hillary is a different outcome, which MORE THAN ONE NeverTrumper here has said they prefer to Trump being elected. Whether they plan to do anything to that end or not.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  108. Gabriel,
    I can say dying in a car crash is preferable than jumping to my death from the Twin Towers. That does not, at all, suggest I’m going to work to crash a car to kill myself.

    John Hitchcock (4edfdd)

  109. @John Hitchcock:That does not, at all, suggest I’m going to work to crash a car to kill myself.

    Thank you John, I already said that, more than once.

    But at least one NeverTrump commenter here has declared he will vote for Hillary.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  110. Dustin may change his mind, just as Cruz and some Cruz supporters changed their minds about endorsing Trump. So what?

    When did it become a bad thing for voters to think for themselves and vote for the person they choose? What is it about Hillary/Trump that has made reasonable people think, like Democrats, that acting like lemmings is a good thing?

    DRJ (15874d)

  111. We used to celebrate being a nation of individuals with free will. Now that Trump is here, we condemn that and focus on the public good. That is the path to tyranny. Losing an election isn’t the worst thing that can happen with the choices we have.

    DRJ (15874d)

  112. @DRJ:When did it become a bad thing for voters to think for themselves and vote for the person they choose?

    I never said it did. Just saying, that in some cases NeverTrump IS trying to elect Hillary. Including some famous cases.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  113. @DRJ:Now that Trump is here, we condemn that

    Condemning a bad choice is not condemning free will.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  114. I agree losing this election is bad, but that happened when Trump won the nomination. NeverTrump folks are ahead of the rest but only when it comes to dealing with our grief at what’s been lost.

    DRJ (15874d)

  115. @DRJ:but that happened when Trump won the nomination

    We’d be saying the same about Cruz now. Hillary had Cruz on her list to run against ahead of Trump.

    We had it happen when we nominated Romney and when we nominated McCain. What’s the common denominator here?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  116. Please stop selectively editing my quotes, Gabriel. It is true that you are focusing on the public good when you endorse Trump solely because you think Hillary is horrible. That’s the nature of a binary choice formulation. There are not only two choices, but sitting home or voting for someone else is discouraged for the public good.

    DRJ (15874d)

  117. The common denominator us they lost, but Obama was a much more formidable opponent. Hillary was beatable but the GOP gave this to her by choosing to stop Cruz by helping Trump.

    DRJ (15874d)

  118. @DRJ: There are not only two choices, but sitting home or voting for someone else is discouraged for the public good.

    Please stop inventing quotes and attributing them to me. I never said anything about “binary choice”. I never said that no one should sit home, or that no one should vote for any non-Trump.

    I said only that some NeverTrump supporters have declared intentions to vote for Hillary. Which is 100% true.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  119. You are condemning free will by criticizing those who choose to exercise it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  120. @DRJ:You are condemning free will by criticizing those who choose to exercise it.

    a) If you say “don’t drink paint thinner” are you condemning free will? If you say, “people who say they intend to drink paint thinner are making a terrible mistake” are you condemning free will?

    b) YOU are condemning free will, by your argument, by condemning ME for “condemning” it. Which I have not done, but even on your terms you are as bad as I am.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  121. At least one of them here has said he’d vote for Hillary. Not all NeverTrumpers, perhaps.

    Only Dustin has said that he would vote for her. But Patrick has been accused of actively working to elect Hillary, and I have been accused of enabling Hillary.

    But what does the NeverTrump label even mean? Doesn’t it mean that any outcome is preferable to electing Trump?

    It means that I will never vote for Trump. I have to accept the outcome, no matter who wins. It does not mean that I prefer Hillary’s election to Trump’s: both outcomes are horrendous, but they are horrendous in different ways. I’m not sure how I could prefer one horrendous outcome over another.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  122. @DRJ: In fact if you apply that reasoning no one should ever try to criticize anyone for any decision what ever, or else they are “condemning free will”.

    Reminds me of Animal House:

    What’s the difference? Ladies and gentlemen, I’ll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests—we did. But you can’t hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn’t we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn’t this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg: isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you you want to us, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  123. Gabriel Hanna:

    @nk: His statement that he wants the libel defenses rolled back? His lawsuits against people who criticize him?

    Citizens United. You may have heard of it. Hillary explicitly pledges to nominate Supreme Court justices who will reverse this decision about a movie that criticized her.

    Trump has made no such pledge about libel law which he has no power to change anyway.

    So, as usual, your choices are between bad and worse, and Hillary is worse.

    Gabriel Hanna (bc876a) — 10/2/2016 @ 7:09 am

    Sounds binary to me.

    DRJ (15874d)

  124. @Chuck:It means that I will never vote for Trump.

    Ok. Some of you with that label choose to vote Hillary, which is a way of not voting for Trump. I think those people are badly mistaken; maybe you do too. Glad to know you are not one. But they do exist. I have no data on what the proportion is.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  125. Criticizing someone for their vote is not the same as criticizing a policy or principle or reasoning. But thanks for patronizing me as someone from Animal House. You love to do that with me and I don’t appreciate it. It demonstrates a refusal to be serious about my points, plud it’s shallow and juvenile and I’m back to ignoring you.

    DRJ (15874d)

  126. @DRJ:Sounds binary to me

    You’ve said the same “bad” and “worse” as I have.

    It is either raining, or not raining. You can vote Trump, or not vote Trump. AAA BINARY CHOICE YOU HATE FREE WILL

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  127. @DRJ:But thanks for patronizing me as someone from Animal House.

    You said something you didn’t think through.

    I’m back to ignoring you.

    You have an odd way of ignoring people.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  128. I supported Cruz. I still support him
    Waiting for Trump to invite conservatives like me back into the party.
    Still waiting.
    I guess I’ll be waiting until after Election Day.

    Evan3457 (79ccc1)

  129. Gabriel,
    Go screw yourself.
    And I say that with all the respect you deserve.
    Go.
    Screw.
    Yourself.

    John Hitchcock (4edfdd)

  130. @Evan3457:Waiting for Trump to invite conservatives like me back into the party.

    People influence elections by delivering votes. If they don’t deliver, no one care what they think. Democrats understand this perfectly, and they assemble huge coalitions of people who don’t agree on anything except getting have a little bit of power, and those people get rewarded with concession here and there.

    You’ve got the cause and effect backward.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  131. @john Hitchcock:And I say that with all the respect you deserve.
    Go.
    Screw.
    Yourself.

    NeverTrump is the principled and decent faction…

    No point in blaming me. The truth is what it is. What I said was 100% true. I acknowledged that lots of NT are voting for Hillary but the truth is some are. That’s not my fault, that’s their choices. You’re madder at me for pointing it out, then you are them for actually doing it.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  132. No, goober, your treatment of others, especially DRJ, is why you need to take a 120-mile ride on a seatless bicycle.

    John Hitchcock (4edfdd)

  133. People influence elections by delivering votes. If they don’t deliver, no one care what they think.

    And if they never stray off the reservation no one cares what they think either.

    Milhouse (e9b6f1)

  134. Leaked Email Shows Huma Abedin Admitting That Hillary Clinton’s Morocco Trip was a Pay-for-Play for a $12 Million Donation, and that Hillary “Created This Mess and She Knows It”

    Quick, Dustin, you should elect her!!!

    Colonel Haiku

    As DRJ explained, she won when Trump was nominated. The fact I personally think Trump is worse than Hillary is actually irrelevant because Hillary’s going to win a landslide and this is no surprise to you.

    But it sure seems like you say the same stuff over and over and over. Hillary = bad for things I probably criticized her for first. I certainly agree with you that she’s bad, albeit I don’t think she’s world endingly bad so much as I think she’s the status quo after eight years of the Obama administration.

    But what’s the relevance of Hillary being bad? That only matters if you’re comparing which candidate is worst. You’re not doing that at all. You’re just ad hoc justifying demanding partisan loyalty from me. I must vote for Team R and here are some reasons that line up with the preordained conclusion. You said the same thing last election and you will say the same thing the next election.

    If this wasn’t the case, you would at least be capable of respecting the viewpoint that Trump might just be worse. And cannot be better, because he did endorse Hillary after all the things you complain about were 95% well known. Trump signed on to Benghazi and email deleting and the rest of it, and he has his own sins to account for too. He thinks Hillary would be a great president.

    No, this stubborn refusal to compare Trump to Hillary betrays your true nature.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  135. David French on Trump’s alt-right trash.

    Sounds familiar.

    Rick Ballard (1919a4)

  136. There are two other points:

    Trump running the GOP is terrible for conservatism and Hillary opposing the GOP is probably going to be good for conservatism.

    And Team R partisans shilling away for a man who has admitted to heinous conduct and is a caricature of the evil republican has done far more damage to the GOP than I’ll ever do. Haiku will surely be insulting me for years (and he has been insulting me for years), but perhaps he should direct all his endless and bizarre anger at the people who actually are responsible for his precious party’s problems.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  137. Hillary ‘s comment on Wikileaks

    “I deplore Wikileaks and the attempts to influence our election”

    Cruz” _ ” just like Hillary – I deplore the Wikileaks – But where do you think Wikileaks got all the emails – I also care enough about America not use a home brew server and not send classified information from an unsecured source ‘

    joe - texas (fa6bbe)

  138. David French on Trump’s alt-right trash.

    Sounds familiar.

    alt.dog-molester. Some people think those creatures should be welcomed by the GOP.

    nk (dbc370)

  139. I’d say 20-30% of actual legal voters in the United States would vote for Clinton no matter what.
    Maybe the same for Trump.
    That leaves 40-60% of actual legal voters deciding what action might cause the least catastrophe,
    or perhaps be useful for some kind of message being sent.
    And then there are those who will vote who are not legally entitled to.

    Fwiw, for the last time,
    The rule of law has already been destroyed by actions of the president and others of the executive branch, including the DOJ and the FBI.
    Clinton, if elected, will start out where we are now and go full speed ahead, with the media covering for her and soon to have the SCOTUS in her pocket.

    I seriously wonder if any effective political opposition will even be able to organize and garner adequate resources for a run in 2020.

    Now, I was thankfully wrong about how bad the Ebola outbreak in Africa was,
    and I could be jumping to the worst case scenario here,
    but sometimes the worst case is what happens.

    That is why I will vote for the fool who might let the country fall apart,
    Rather than vote for the one who will try to make the country as we know it fall apart and replace it with leftist socia-fascism (if one can name such a thing).

    I think Trump will have many in both parties and the press and public that will seriously limit what he can do,
    and anyone who thinks Trump is a conservative is probably beyond reach already.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  140. The GOP was ruined previously, Trump was evidence of it, not a cause, and the GOP is currently in a shambles, and remain there for years to come no matter who wins the presidency.
    Too many in the elite ruling class would rather have Trump or Clinton than a solid conservative who stands their ground.

    A true conservative leading the GOP would be a hostile takeover as far as the ruling class and those who fund them are concerned.

    Tom Cotton in 2020 in a 3 way race.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  141. MD you’re right. A lot of folks really do not seriously sit down and concern themselves with which candidate is better than the other. They are Democrats or Republicans and that’s just who they are. This year is special because millions of voters are going to break with that habit. Trump is just sufficiently bad that Republicans will vote against him rather than just not turn out.

    By refusing to think outside the box, the GOP has allowed Trump to do long term damage.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  142. I personally know of no person who thinks Trump is a conservative. The only people who could possibly think Trump a conservative would think Killary is a moderate. IOW, a far leftist.

    Rather than vote for the one who will try to make the country as we know it fall apart and replace it with leftist socia-fascism (if one can name such a thing).

    You already named it Doc: fascist. The partnering (collusion) of government, law and economics to run a nation. Like making a hundred million selling political favors to business, banks and foreigners.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  143. Trump was evidence of it, not a cause, and the GOP is currently in a shambles

    The slate of candidates in this primary were the best we’ve had in generations. This year was a golden opportunity, not just another year of RINOs like Romney. This year isn’t same as usual.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  144. Dustin, I know your last post went up before my last appeared.
    Trump, imo, was the result of a failed GOP, not the cause.
    The GOP will remain decimated and broken whether Trump wins or not. Trump losing will not purge or educate the R ruling class. They preferred Clinton to a conservative in 2016,
    those folk will continue to prefer Clinton over a conservative in 2020.

    Perhaps 2018 will need true conservatives to run independent caucusing with the R’s as a prelude to 2020.

    I’m guessing on what might work.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  145. Trump, imo, was the result of a failed GOP, not the cause.

    I know you’re right, but I want to make clear that the GOP isn’t the guys in suits eating bisque in the Capitol Hill Club. It’s the Hannity listeners and other jackasses like that.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  146. Dustin, the field was narrowed to Trump, Cruz, and one of two spoilers against Cruz. The powers preferred Trump or Clinton to Cruz, I see no reason to expect them to change.

    They won’t even have the opportunity, they will need to enable Clinton or they will be destroyed by FBI investigations.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  147. Think of what happened to Palin,
    and Walker supporters in WI,
    and imagine what that will be like with the DOJ and FBI leading the charge,
    not a local DA.
    and the courts and media enabling.

    What sane good opposition is going to put their family through that he**?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  148. What sane good opposition is going to put their family through that he**?

    Anyone running for president has to be a sociopath these days. You could see how Cruz’s family were his Achilles heel and Trump and his fans kept hitting Cruz’s family over and over. That is the GOP.

    The powers preferred Trump or Clinton to Cruz, I see no reason to expect them to change.

    The establishment wanted Clinton over Cruz. But the GOP plurality went with a slimeball and most of them have no idea that they were being played into handing the election to Hillary. That’s where my main frustration is. We can say we are oppressed, but this is the government we deserve.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  149. I know you’re right, but I want to make clear that the GOP isn’t the guys in suits eating bisque in the Capitol Hill Club. It’s the Hannity listeners and other jackasses like that.

    That’s ridiculous, Dustin. The GOP are the very guys in the suits eating the bisque. Hannity listeners and other “jackasses” as you so politely call them would never in their lives be invited to the Capitol Hill Club. Trump’s no conservative but Hannity most assuredly is but he’s a partisan who would rather embrace Trump then have Trump lose to Klinton. You may not like that but it’s a fact.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  150. Hoagie, re-read your comment and tell me what your argument was. What were the premises and how do they support your ‘fact’? Just replying to people with WRONG WRONG WRONG is how Trump debates because he can’t do better than that, but you can do better than that.

    The GOP is Trump and his voters. The GOP establishment forfeited any competition to this reality. Whether it should be or not is irrelevant. What actually happened is what is relevant.

    Trump’s no conservative but Hannity most assuredly is

    Hannity is an entertainer. Politics mean nothing to him. Look how easily he glommed onto the Trump phenomenon because he recognized the ratings in it. He also probably recognized the doomed loss coming in november with the rest of the media, if Trump is nominated. But this is extremely good news for conservative blow-hards, looking for a return to the golden age of talk radio.

    Did you think it was a coincidence that Rush and Hannity were so apathetic about conservatism in the primary?

    The GOP are the very guys in the suits eating the bisque.

    Some of them are, but they are a grain of sand in a sea of people who have defended every low thing Trump is and has done. Jackasses, every one of them, because they gave their integrity for nothing.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  151. Which man has ever won a “debate” with a woman? Futility.

    brit (8d27fa)

  152. Trump speaks to airheads, Cruz to the aware. Guess which there are more of.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  153. Ted Cruz would have wiped the floor with Hillary Clinton.

    As would Romney, Ryan, Fiorina, Rubio and probably Jeb!, Kasich and Christie.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  154. Tell me, what low thing has #NeverTrump said Trump would do, that Trump has not done?

    What retort from the “just wait, you’ll see!” crowd of Trump apologists has come true?

    Kevin M (25bbee)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4844 secs.