Patterico's Pontifications

FWIW, I cast the first vote, for option #3. If he and Hillary are the nominees, I’m out.

Patterico (86c8ed) — 10/25/2015 @ 12:11 am

I’m predicting 4/90/6.

Patterico (86c8ed) — 10/25/2015 @ 12:14 am

Saved for posterity. Aaaahhh. Sanity prevailed in the first ten minutes.

Patterico (86c8ed) — 10/25/2015 @ 12:20 am

The tide is already turning, 15 minutes in.

Patterico (86c8ed) — 10/25/2015 @ 12:25 am

More dead bodies if you let bill’s wife win.

mg (31009b) — 10/25/2015 @ 12:28 am

It is a shame the republican party can’t field a winner against these hateful democrats.
I know – it’s all the conservatives fault.
B.S.

mg (31009b) — 10/25/2015 @ 12:30 am

I think, 20 minutes in, that the heyday of never ever voting for Trump has passed. Option 2 has already taken over and I predict will run away with it.

Patterico (86c8ed) — 10/25/2015 @ 12:31 am

More dead bodies if you let bill’s wife win.

I don’t think there’s a difference. I don’t. They both terrify me utterly.

Patterico (86c8ed) — 10/25/2015 @ 12:32 am

Less than an hour in, it’s 0/70/30.

I think my prediction was sound. We’ll see.

Patterico (86c8ed) — 10/25/2015 @ 1:07 am

I just could never “not” vote even if I have to hold my nose. So, option 2.

wvevie (b09376) — 10/25/2015 @ 3:41 am

I don’t love Trump, but his outspoken positions expose the GOPe for the unreliable, two-faced, boot-licking, useless Democrat enablers they’ve become. And, I sure as hell love that.

ropelight (ff9f57) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:11 am

I haven’t completely decided on what to do in a Trump v. Clinton disaster scenario. But I have decided that I could, under some circumstances vote for Trump although it might well usher in the apocalypse.

Cruz, Carson, Santorum, Jindal are my first three choices. There is some possibility that I could vote for Trump and those odds are greatly improved if they are serving Tequila at my voting station. I like what Fiorina says lately but I really don’t believe she means any of what she says.

If it is Bush, Christie, Huckabee, or Rubio I am definitely voting for the Constitution Party.

https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates?gclid=CI6v_5vX3cgCFYcSHwodjyoCUQ

WarEagle82 (44dbd0) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:06 am

I’ll say what I think I’ve already said,
a wise candidate will understand what Trump is tapping into in the profound disappointment and disgust of the Repubs in DC that exists in the voters.
But the thing is, anyone who is going to tap into that successfully has needed to already prove himself, making promises now means nothing.

I think Cruz is the most electable conservative, whether he is electable or not. I don’t see any other politician in DC having enough credibility, I think Jindal has shown the right reflexes, but he hasn’t had traction.

I wonder if Webb could make a go of it as an independent.

MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:13 am

You’re doing what the GOP establishment does and viewing Trump as a buffoon who is misleading dumb voters. Stop focusing on Trump. He’s a symptom, not a disease.

Trump and Carson together show almost 50% of GOP voters are exasperated with business as usual. The more unusual the frontrunners are, the more it reflects how exasperated the voters are. Voters want to send a message to the GOP and its big donors. I think it’s working.

DRJ (15874d) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:36 am

What good does sitting an election out do, given those two choices? I can’t think of one positive outcome.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:13 am

Call me crazy, but taking your ~~ball~~ vote and going home seems pretty ridiculous.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:17 am

I would like to know if anyone who says they would sit out the election if it were Trump and Hillary ever said it was a mistake for other people to refuse to vote for McCain or Romney.

MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:26 am

trump is a pooper but he poops right on top of jebfilth’s head and all those condescending jackoffs who gave him monies

he poops on boehner and poops on mcconnell

and I loved more than beans how he pooped on meghan’s coward daddy

that was epic

i like people who weren’t captured lol

happyfeet (831175) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:33 am

Trump is not McCain and he would have to stand on a stack of all his money, in singles, to achieve Romney’s stature, that’s the problem, MD. He is not an imperfect candidate — he is the danger of democracy just like Obama and Hillary.

nk (dbc370) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:34 am

I haven’t decided whether I’d vote for him. He’s good on immigration and I perceive his foreign policy wouldn’t consist of sucking up to our enemies. Outside of that I don’t know what the difference is between him and Democrats, like the critical question of judicial appointments.

Gerald A (c77e21) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:38 am

trump/cruz 2016

donald can bring the poopies and ted can do the kim davis butt-snuffles!

WINNING

happyfeet (831175) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:40 am

and next time around people will think twice about showrering bushfilth with a hundred million dollars failmerican

baby steps

happyfeet (831175) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:44 am

Trump is a scary personality… but more scary than Hillary! Clinton?! I don’t think so. I think Clinton has much more potential to wreak havoc on our nation. In so many different ways.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:51 am

*showering*

happyfeet (831175) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:52 am

Happyfeet… having to wade through your swill on a Sunday morning is more punishment than any man should have to take.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:53 am

Well, that’s my problem, in a nutshell. I can’t say that Trump is the lesser of two weevils.

nk (dbc370) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:53 am

Patterico,

This is the result of Republican “leaders” refusing to address the concerns of the people who vote for them.

DN (84d11d) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:54 am

Seriously, this is just gladiators entertaining the masses. America the Original is going under and the question of reinstantiation cannot be anticipated with any degree of confidence whatever in the present.

DNF (45ef00) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:55 am

While it’s certainly telling that two outsiders are currently in the lead, whether or not the donor class gets the message in time and acts accordingly, becomes irrelevant if enough voters are like Patterico and choose to sit out the election rather than vote Trump.

Patterico, what specifically do you see getting worse under a Trump presidency than already is under this president?

Dana (86e864) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:55 am

the glory of a trump/cruz administration is how the scummy effete chamberboy republicans would have to learn how to talk trump-language

this will require learning about honesty and directness

oh my goodness a lot of them will get left behind

happyfeet (831175) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:55 am

Believing what I do, it would be immoral not to vote against Hillary, even if the GOP nominee were very flawed.

Mitch (bfd5cd) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:55 am

I understand and agree with your point, nk.

My point, which I made at the time, is that some wanted to say, iirc, that it was wrong to refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, always
I suggested that it was more an issue of relatives, that everybody had a line at which their decisions was, “Sorry, I can’t go that far”.
For some it was Romney, for some McCain, for some, Trump.

One can argue the relative merits of how appropriate the decision is not to vote in each case,
but it is a decision of where an individual will draw the line.

MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 10/25/2015 @ 8:14 am

I took option #2. This is how came to my decision:

I wonder what the worst Hillary could do with the help of her friends, one of which is the MSM

I wonder what the worst Trump could do with the help of his friends, one of which is -well, I cannot think of any.

It seems there would be less cooperation from every government entity (e.g., IRS) with Trump as POTUS than with Hillary as POTUS. So that particular synergy would not be available to whatever agenda he wants to promote.

Sure, there would be the opportunity and temptation for every department to go rogue under a Trump Presidency, so what is the probability that a shadow government would emerge that would either control trump as a puppet, or render him a figurehead?

HMMM I’m not sure now which scenario is worse. Hillary is sure to do what I fear, but is Trump sure to be the disaster that I fear?

felipe (56556d) — 10/25/2015 @ 8:20 am

I wonder what the worst Hillary could do with the help of her friends, one of which is the MSM

That is a big consideration. If the past predicts the future, Hillary will get away with anything she wants, no matter how wicked and illegal.
Trump will not have that “advantage”.

Trump could get impeached, Hillary never;
make sure Trump has a real choice for VP, not an “insurance policy”.

MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 10/25/2015 @ 8:26 am

11.I don’t love Trump, but his outspoken positions expose the GOPe for the unreliable, two-faced, boot-licking, useless Democrat enablers they’ve become. And, I sure as hell love that.

And if you’re a Republican or a conservative and you refuse to vote for Trump if he’s the GOP candidate you too have become an unreliable, two-faced, boot-licking democrat enabler. What my father used to call a Fair Weather Republican. How could having a Republican President an a Republican Congress “terrify” you?

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/25/2015 @ 8:27 am

I do not presume to talk for our host, but maybe, just maybe he sees a “Trump or Hillary” election as a “Sophie’s choice” moment? Why would he want to participate in an evil act? If things are so bad, that what we are being offered amounts to a “heads I win, tails you lose” proposition, then what is really wrong with walking away without playing?

felipe (56556d) — 10/25/2015 @ 8:29 am

One can argue the relative merits of how appropriate the decision is not to vote in each case, but it is a decision of where an individual will draw the line.

Well DR in Philly, I also assume those Republicans who didn’t vote for McCain and who didn’t vote for Romney liked the outcome of those elections since they failed miserably to do their part to change those outcomes. Not that supporting your team is a duty but, yeah, it is.

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/25/2015 @ 8:34 am

“Trump could get impeached, Hillary never;
make sure Trump has a real choice for VP, not an “insurance policy”.

I never thought about that, doc. Good catch.

felipe (56556d) — 10/25/2015 @ 8:36 am

Had Sophie refused to play both kids would die and so would she.

Why would he want to participate in an evil act?

So now voting is a evil act? Like abortion? Like murder? You’re kidding.

If things are so bad, that what we are being offered amounts to a “heads I win, tails you lose” proposition, then what is really wrong with walking away without playing?

We are not being offered heads or tails. We are being offered a democrat we don’t want and a Republican we don’t like. Big difference. And what’s wrong with waking away without plying is the fact you are playing right into the democrats hands.

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/25/2015 @ 8:42 am

I don’t think there’s a difference. I don’t. They both terrify me utterly.

But in terms of your gut instincts, are you at least willing to say, as you did for Obama back in 2009 (which was debated and contested among various forumers here), that you believe Donald Trump to be (and I believe this was the phrase you used) a good man?

I never got into the middle of that exchange, but as the years have gone by, I think such a description is even less applicable to the current occupant of the Oval Office.

BTW, I don’t know even about what makes Trump tick to come right out and proclaim him a “good man,” although I believe his innate biases and history make him less likely to be a sleazebag compared with Barry Obama.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 8:57 am

^ “BTW, I don’t know enough…”

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 8:58 am

I selected option 2, and for those who chose option 3, I ask whether they would be quite willing to — by contrast — vote for Jeb Bush? Even more so when such people are aware of the phrase “demographics is destiny.”

If a person is truly alarmed by liberalism and Obama’s America, I’d think they would be shocked enough to dispense with a business-as-usual casualness that various Republicans/conservatives might have had years ago, when a cautious but non-appalled impression of the US’s ideological underpinnings and how an election will or won’t affect that didn’t seem quite as compelling or crucial.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 9:06 am

Trump isn’t my choice but I’m not one of those who thinks everyone has to vote. It’s a personal choice, and different elections/candidates motivate us in different ways.

Remember the people who didn’t want to vote for Romney? Some of them probably like Trump now. They should understand how it feels to dislike a candidate so much that they didn’t want to vote. Similarly, those who couldn’t imagine staying home in Romney vs Obama should think twice about boycotting Trump. Trump may not be their idea of a good choice but how could anyone be worse than the greedy Clintons now that Obama has changed the rules in the executive branch?

I’m not the best judge, though, because Trump doesn’t seem much different than Romney to me. They are both successful businessmen who have been moderate and even inconsistent conservatives. Romney is a much nicer, more decent person but morality doesn’t make someone a better President. Being willing to ruffle feathers and play dirty is necessary in today’s world, especially for a conservative. Just ask the Chamber of Commerce. Or, for that matter, ask Romney. In hindsight, I bet he might speak more freely if he had his campain to do over.

DRJ (15874d) — 10/25/2015 @ 9:15 am

I’m a Cruz fan and one of the things he’s basing his campaign on is motivating conservatives who haven’t been voting, instead of depending on swing voters. People who see no difference between Trump and Hillary are effectively swing voters. It’s better they stay home because, if they did vote, they might go either way.

DRJ (15874d) — 10/25/2015 @ 9:20 am

I’ve been posting on various conservative sites, almost since the beginning of the internet (I used my Apple II, to post on CompuServe). After a point you see the same posters repeatedly. But when Trump appeared I saw avatars I had never seen on any conservative site at all, appearing posting opinions that sound more reactionary than conservative; and reacting like total fanboys to any disagreement with their “hero”. I wonder how deep his support goes, or is this just a case of people voting for their favorite celebrity?

Mike Giles (dc401c) — 10/25/2015 @ 9:20 am

What ever you think of Trump, have no understanding at all how anyone with functioning brain matter could vote for Hillary! It’s not an option. I’ve had to hold my nose and vote for GOPe hacks who did nothing they promised since January 20th, 1989. Perhaps the GOPe could return the continuing favor rather than screwing the pooch again.

Bugg (fa64ec) — 10/25/2015 @ 9:22 am

Damn it, I want a fourth option–

I will threaten to not vote for Trump, just like all the previous purists did, and then…I just might not vote for the lesser Democrat.

Danube River Guide (76b104) — 10/25/2015 @ 9:27 am

Patterico , the Captain Ahab of today.

mike191 (b4a717) — 10/25/2015 @ 9:33 am

How many of you voted Trump because he’s the next best thing since sliced bread?

Just me?

Here’s the thing that cinched it for me. Wind turbines are rated to last 30 years. The Obama admin has allowed turbines a 5 year moratorium on prosecution for the killing of eagles. That’s the situation today. But Obama wanted to give he windfarm proprietors a 30 year moratorium. That is to say carte blanche to kill as many endangered species as they might for as long as the turbines are in business.

I’m not sure if it was the Audubon Society, but whom ever, bird lovers took Obama to court to fight giving the Turbines the blank check on bird chopping, and they won the case. This doesn’t save any birds from the wind farms today, but in a year or so that ruling is going to allow the next admin to put those Obama capitalist chrony SOB’s out of business.

Few people paid that ruling much attention, and to tell the truth I don’t know if Trump noticed it, but the next picture I saw of Trump, this omnipresent media presence, under the headline, “The Donald Has Landed: Deal With It.” is Trump with a live Eagle on a perch next to his desk.

In that minute like Jacopo to the Count of Monte Cristo in my mind I say “I swear on my dead relatives – and even on the ones who are not feeling too good – I am your man forever!”

papertiger (c2d6da) — 10/25/2015 @ 9:34 am

Being willing to ruffle feathers and play dirty is necessary in today’s world, especially for a conservative.

Closely related to that is a willingness to challenge and oppose the lunacy of political correctness — a scourge in 21st century America — which too many parlor-room or cocktail-circuit Republicans/conservatives are resistant to doing, certainly in public.

Even a willingness to specifically point out and explain the differences between liberals and conservatives — and to use the words “liberal” and “conservative,” much less “centrist” or “moderate” — is not evident among pretty much all the Republican candidates.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 9:37 am

If it’s Trump as the nominee, none of this matters, Hillary wins.

Hillary only needs something like 40% of the white vote.

What happens when you run Trump against her?

Well Trump is the rich, old white guy he fits that archetype.

There are a lot of supposed Conservative blogs pushing a sort of he man women haters zeitgeist, but I suspect they are really Liberal East Coast agitators.

The Dirty Little Secret is that last election cycle Romney won the white women vote, not just the married white women vote, but the single white women vote. Yet on theses blogs and from Ann Coulter you will hear that women should lose their right to vote.

They say this in their safe places of course, they would never go to a rap concert and start shouting how African American males should not have the right to vote.

Again turn off enough of the white female vote that Romney actually WON by a historic percentage, and Hillary wins.

Trump fits the archetype of Archie Bunker vs. Edith, but it is worse–Trump is most definitely the other bete noir of the Left–

The One Percent.

Danube River Guide (76b104) — 10/25/2015 @ 9:45 am

Think how boring it would be to just sail into things and have everything be perfect. You can’t prove your merit on quiet waters, whether you’re a businessman or a mariner.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 10/25/2015 @ 9:52 am

DRG-

If Hillary! wins, it’s over. OVER, JOHNNY. Done, finished, kaput, f___in’ FIN.

Bugg (fa64ec) — 10/25/2015 @ 9:59 am

Also most political junkies know that the historic swing vote is the white Catholic swing vote. So now the posting about the Pope where they hope their anti-Catholic commenters will foment. Trump might get some of the blue collar vote as someone upthread states, but he is not going to get the hard core unionists, the blue collar that have been trained to hate the one percent, the frmsle blue collar vote eill be difficult, and now the Catholic blue collar vote.

It’s going to be a fight over a very few swing voters –with Trump as the nominee –Hillary most certainly wins.

Danube River Guide (76b104) — 10/25/2015 @ 9:59 am

Bugg

If Trump is the nominee Hillary wins by a landslide, my vote isn’t going to matter.

Danube River Guide (76b104) — 10/25/2015 @ 10:02 am

You better hope someone other than Hillary’s friend wins the Republican primary.

Danube River Guide (76b104) — 10/25/2015 @ 10:04 am

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/25/2015 @ 8:42 am

All your points are good, brother. But do not forget the old saying: Either lead, follow, or get out of the way!

Those who will not vote are just getting out of the way. It will take some major leading to inspire people to abandon of that camp.

Honest question, Hoagie, what in your opinion would be a good way to persuade Patterico to vote? I’ll go first: I would demonstrate empathy for his position, accompany him on the periphery and point to the way back to voting.

felipe (56556d) — 10/25/2015 @ 10:08 am

Just kinda depressing the number of people choosing option #2 – voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Sure, you’re voting for Mussolini over Beelzebub but it’s depressing that’s the choice we’re reduced to.

Jerryskids (8957b1) — 10/25/2015 @ 10:12 am

If it’s Trump as the nominee, none of this matters, Hillary wins.

And which Republican do you think will be strategically, tactically and emotionally situated to make such an outcome less likely? Ben Carson? Jeb Bush? Ted Cruz?

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 10:12 am

Bribe him with a fresh jumbo Lobster roll on a brioche bun. And onion rings.

mg (31009b) — 10/25/2015 @ 10:15 am

Mark

Speaking of the particular voters I discussed–Trump would do very poorly. And it seems to me the bloggers and other elements that supposedly support him do their best to alienate those voters, so I suspect they really don’t want Trump to win.
It’s about creating such a power vacuum for Hillary to step into that she even gets a Democrat majority of the Senate.

You have to hand it to The Left they understand winning matters, the supremacy of the Senate, and that emotions and irrationality are their allies.

Danube River Guide (76b104) — 10/25/2015 @ 10:23 am

After Hillary is done you’re going to wish you didn’t alienate everyone with just 5% of a difference in opinion from whomever is your political unaccountable pundit hero.

Danube River Guide (76b104) — 10/25/2015 @ 10:28 am

Exactly what I said / asked a few weeks ago. I say this with all due respect and seriousness to Patterico and others here.

If trump is the nominee, do you stay home? Isn’t he even 1% better than Hillary?

I don’t understand the defeatest thinking.

We’re not having the exact type of Mexican food I wanted, therefore I won’t eat anything.

Trump isn’t my ideal candidate, therefore I’ll contribute to a Hillary Clinton win.

Please explain how that helps those of us who don’t want Hillary in there?

No on in particular (eb0373) — 10/25/2015 @ 10:30 am

Hoagie: So now voting is an evil act? Like abortion? Like murder? You’re kidding.

felipe: Are you saying that not voting is evil? Like abortion? like murder? You’re kidding.

No hoagie, neither of us holds those positions. Those are straw-men.

It can be argued that much evil is like abortion, like murder; certainly all evil that deadens the soul is like murder. Voting for evil, assisting in evil, failure to resist evil, yes, that is evil, too. Not voting can be seen as remaining silent in the face of evil. This I think should be our point, Hoagie. I think non voters would find that argument persuasive.

BTW, “Had Sophie refused to play both kids would die and so would she.” That may be true, but what of it? If there is a God, an after life with heaven and hell, would Sophie and her children have been better served by playing into that Nazi’s hand?

felipe (56556d) — 10/25/2015 @ 10:32 am

To #58,

What you don’t seem to realize is that by choosing to not vote for the evil Trump you end up with the evil Hillary.
How do you think that’s going to work out?

You act like not voting for Trump is a act of triumph, because then no one wins. Well, unfortunately that’s not how our system works you get a choice of two, one wins no matter what.

Please explain to me where I’m going wrong, and once again I say that with all due respect, I’m not looking to create a childish argument.

No on in particular (eb0373) — 10/25/2015 @ 10:34 am

Jerryskids (8957b1) — 10/25/2015 @ 10:12 am

I hear you. I’m with Danube who wants a #4 option. We are going to get a fourth option. Hang in there. Sanity may not prevail, but there is such a thing as damage control.

Cue steve57 and his thoughts on damage control.

felipe (56556d) — 10/25/2015 @ 10:39 am

Saying someone has to vote implies that vote will make a difference, either in the State where the vote is cast or in the state of politics. Some people feel a moderate Republican vs any Democrat is already a loss. There may be a point in the short run but there is no point in the long run.

DRJ (15874d) — 10/25/2015 @ 10:40 am

“There may be a point in the short run but there is no point in the long run.”

I would like to call that “Sophie’s point.”

felipe (56556d) — 10/25/2015 @ 10:43 am

i didn’t realize lobster rolls were involved

happyfeet (831175) — 10/25/2015 @ 10:44 am

i think a ClintonII Presidency would do more damage than a Trump Presidency. Further, i think ClintonII would finish the job that the present PotUS has started in destroying American Ideals.

I do wonder how many voters would cast an anti-ClintonII vote. Even if it means getting Trump as President, I don’t think anyone anticipates his getting a 2nd term or getting any personally favored legislation through Congress after the first year.

seeRpea (9e22e8) — 10/25/2015 @ 10:53 am

The day after Hillary’s testimony, a colleague mentioned that he thought Hillary looked “tough as nails” and “proved she could run the country.” I decided to test his certainty by saying “I think the country is ready for a woman to be President. But I don’t think Clinton is ready because she resigned from Sec of State. If Palin is unfit to be POTUS because she resigned her Governorship, then neither is Hillary fit to be POTUS.” Then I added the “kicker.” “If Hillary is the D nominee, the Republicans will win.” You should have seen all the enthusiasm for Hillary drain away. Food for thought.

felipe (56556d) — 10/25/2015 @ 11:11 am

Given that one of the current SCJ is 82 years old, and two others are pushing 80, it’s highly likely that the next president will appoint at least one justice in their first four years. That being said, the most important question to me is, who do you want in office at that time, Hillary or Trump?

Dana (86e864) — 10/25/2015 @ 11:11 am

Cruz if R
Webb if I

Gee, just how would things play out if were Webb vs Trump? I’ll put down the crack-pipe now.

felipe (56556d) — 10/25/2015 @ 11:17 am

It’s about creating such a power vacuum for Hillary to step into that she even gets a Democrat majority of the Senate.

Danube, since I don’t believe you’ve posted here in the past (at least assuming you haven’t changed your handle), I can’t judge where you’re coming from or how you assess political, cultural and ideological matters. You say why you think Donald Trump as the Republican nominee will guarantee the presidency to Hillary, but you haven’t said why you don’t believe that will be a problem — or as much of a problem — for some other Republican nominee.

I have far fewer qualms about the ideology and likely policymaking of Ted Cruz compared with Donald Trump, but I also see too much foolish benefit of the doubt being given by too much of the American electorate towards a Democrat/liberal — even one as trashy and dishonest as Hillary — much less of that same benefit of the doubt, if any, being given to a rock-ribbed conservative.

But, yes, in turn, a Trump nomination will alienate a variety of rock-ribbed conservatives but also an assortment of cocktail-circuit Republicans like the Bushes or Karl “Hispanics-are-natural-conservatives” Rove.

Simply put, there are Hobson’s Choices all away around and matters of upsides-downsides about each and every Republican candidate.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 11:34 am

Has it ever dawned on you guys that there ay be millions of moderate democrats that would hold their noses and vote for Trump over Hillary!? We are not the only ones who sometimes have to hold our nose ya know. And just exactly what do you think some democrats are holding when they look at an avowed socialist using their party against Hillary!?

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/25/2015 @ 11:40 am

I cast a Never vote. Even at this point, the Nevers are clearly outdistancing the Loves. I always knew the “do the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different result” crowd would easily win the day. But the point is there is a huge contingency who will never, ever vote for Trump. And it’s that contingency, myself and the host included, that will prevent Trump the Democrat from ever winning the Presidency.

Trump is a lost cause for Republicans. As it was planned from the beginning. All those “electability” people who are in love with Trump need to understand. With the total number of people who will never vote for him, he is NOT electable. Dole, McCain, Romney, Trump. All four “electable” except they aren’t.

John Hitchcock (3faba0) — 10/25/2015 @ 11:44 am

The it’s our job to make sure a clown like Trump does not get the nomination. Then we don’t have to worry about Trump vs. Hillary!, do we? So we know what to do on Primary day: Don’t vote Trump!

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/25/2015 @ 11:48 am

MD in Philly @ 17. I didn’t vote for McCain. I voted for Palin. McCain was just the top of the ticket. And I didn’t vote for the Romney ticket at all. As far as Patterico goes, he can answer for himself, but I see him finally seeing the futility of the “go along to get along” vote and has seen that taking a stand may be immediately bad but long-term good.

If you always vote for the guy the Ruling Class Moderates put up, “who else will they vote for” will always be their trump card. But if you take that trump card away, they will finally have to start listening to the base instead of the mushy crony capitalists.

John Hitchcock (3faba0) — 10/25/2015 @ 11:55 am

I was very ready to not vote for the Republican choice at all, until McCain selected Palin as his running mate. If he had not selected her, I wouldn’t have voted for that line in the ballot at all.

John Hitchcock (3faba0) — 10/25/2015 @ 11:56 am

Why do we insist on saying Trump is a Republican, much less a conservative?

JD (3b5483) — 10/25/2015 @ 12:05 pm

Mark @ 40:
Trump is not a good man. He destroyed many lives with his many failed business ventures. Banks had to make unwise business choices just so they wouldn’t go under with a failed businessman like Trump. He was so big and so indebted to them and so unable to pay them that if they forced him to collapse totally, as he should have, they too would have collapsed. Because they were stupid enough to loan him so much money. They had to support his failures so they could remain viable. And still, his business prowess (hahahahaha) caused him to put all his businesses in one single basket and bankrupt them 4 separate times. And those bankruptcies caused the banks to finally force REAL business managers on him, so they would run his businesses and not him.

He will steal private property from the little guy to give to the big guy and keep it private property.

He will fund Planned Parenthood.

He will help usher in Single Payer (Socialized Medicine).

His tax plan violates the 10th Commandment, just like all the other Democrats.

His loudest supporters are White Power pieces of trash. The same Stormfront crowd that built up Laup Nor.

No, a Trump/Clinton choice will be the death-knell of the USA, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and Christian freedom. End Times Prophecy says that will indeed happen, but I don’t want it to happen this soon.

John Hitchcock (3faba0) — 10/25/2015 @ 12:14 pm

JD @ 80:
Trump is a Democrat. Trump is a Democrat. Trump is a Democrat. I never insist on claiming Trump is what he obviously is not. I don’t know why so many otherwise intelligent people insist on such utter stupidity.

John Hitchcock (3faba0) — 10/25/2015 @ 12:16 pm

Trump is a pooper

but you have to remember your sad little country is already raped bloody and useless for all practical purposes

the stakes are simply not that high

happyfeet (831175) — 10/25/2015 @ 12:33 pm

Has it ever dawned on you guys that there ay be millions of moderate democrats that would hold their noses and vote for Trump over Hillary!?

It’s sad that we (or certainly I) have to be so cynical about our fellow human beings to believe they are nonsensical enough to make the outcome of any Republican nominee placed against a scroungy, mendacious person like Hillary automatically in doubt or uncertain until the last minute on election day. But that’s the reality we’re facing, that’s the pathetic situation this society finds itself in based on opinion polls going back quite awhile.

If that cynicism and doubt (which I have) are justified and appropriate, then in a way this nation is already sunk, headed down a dark pit.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 12:36 pm

I answered the poll before I read the discussion but now I’ve changed my mind. I answered that I would never vote for Trump but two things made me reconsider: first, someone pointed out that Trump will not have the entire Democrat apparatus (including the MSM and federal employees) behind him and that greatly reduces the damage he can do.

Second, and more important: I have refused to vote for any Republican candidate between Bush I and Romney (I liked Romney because of his stance on immigration) because I felt that the candidates were being chosen by a cabal of the elite who were little better than Democrats and I felt that giving in to their machinations was empowering them. I believed the only way to fight them was to refuse to vote for the candidates that they forced on us until they gave up and let us have candidates that we wanted.

But if we can nominate a candidate the Republican leadership hates, maybe it would put a crack in their power. If we can nominate a candidate they hate and then elect that candidate … I don’t know, but our country is in great danger from the Democrats and the only way to defeat them is to get new leadership in the Republican party. Maybe a Trump win can help make that happen. I think I’ve talked my self into hoping for a Trump win.

Cugel (46c54c) — 10/25/2015 @ 12:40 pm

Trump is not a good man.

John, my question was directed at people like Patterico, to probe how much naivete they have or had about an Obama compared with a Trump, etc. IOW, there was never anything about Obama’s background that made my heart flutter enough to deem him a “good man,” so I’m trying to determine if this website’s host fell for the stereotype that liberals, because they at least have good intentions and a big heart, therefore justify receiving more benefit of the doubt from the public than such public figures deserve.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 12:44 pm

Patterico – If [Trump] and Hillary are the nominees, I’m out… I don’t think there’s a difference. I don’t. They both terrify me utterly.

This should terrify you more:

“It may be time to start questioning whether a people can ever restrain the inevitable growth of their government with a piece of paper.”

You are on the edge of recognizing we don’t live in constitutional republic. Please take the next step
and think through the consequences of that premise. The political class privately regards the Constitution as a dead letter. One presidential candidate may be better than another, but none possess the means or even the desire to restore both our lost constitutional order and the culture necessary to sustain it.

scrutineer (b7d257) — 10/25/2015 @ 12:57 pm

Mark – you are well and truly a moron.

JD (3b5483) — 10/25/2015 @ 1:05 pm

Has it ever dawned on you guys that there ay be millions of moderate democrats that would hold their noses and vote for Trump over Hillary!?

I think this is a real factor. I’ll bet there are quite a few Democrats who will perceive him as a Democrat and vote that way.

Mike K (90dfdc) — 10/25/2015 @ 1:16 pm

Partterico, a question. Do you think that Trump would move America further in the wrong direction than Hillary? Why?

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/25/2015 @ 1:39 pm

Trump supporters, a question. How do you plan on countering a barrage of ads that go like this:

Woman standing beside husband’s grave, saying “Back in [year], DOnald Trump declared bankruptcy and walked away with all the marbles. We lost everything and my husband just gave up. Don’t let him do this to America.”

Saying “Trump didn’t declare bankruptcy, his company did!” is not going to win you the case.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/25/2015 @ 1:43 pm

And that’s assuming that Trump isn’t a Dem plant who’ll take a dive in October.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/25/2015 @ 1:43 pm

There’s a third possibility I’ve not seen discussed.

Trump wins the nomination and the eGOP bolts. Jeb! runs as an independent centrist. Then all this Trump or Bust! rhetoric collapses.

I call this the “Trump collapses later” scenario.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/25/2015 @ 1:49 pm

Kevi , for every got ya ad you can come up with for Trump I can come up with ten for Hillary!. You know that!

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/25/2015 @ 1:55 pm

Cruz, Carson, Santorum, Jindal are my first three choices.

I agree that Santorum doesn’t count. Well said!

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/25/2015 @ 1:57 pm

Sorry Kevin M. My N’s and M’s stick.

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/25/2015 @ 1:58 pm

Mark – you are well and truly a moron.

Well, jeez, JD, thanks for the compliment.

In turn, are you a douchebag?

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 2:01 pm

Kevi , for every got ya ad you can come up with for Trump I can come up with ten for Hillary!. You know that!

Not if you plan on using the last 26 scandals that nobody seems to care about, and which the press will not report. Job losses and the crappy economy under Obama are a main issue, and Captain Pink Slip isn’t going to work.

Even Romney, who was a MUCH better businessman than Trump, had a hard time with that. Romney, and Fiorina this time, have good responses (Fiorina can truthfully claim to saving tens of thousands of jobs in a downturn).

Trump not so much, and his response would probably be worse than the charge. He has a habit of playing to his supporters while repulsing the undecided.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/25/2015 @ 2:03 pm

Do you think that Trump would move America further in the wrong direction than Hillary? Why?

Speaking of moronism, although Trump is full of left-leaning squish — as far too many Americans are too — he doesn’t appear to be as unconscious (or proud) of that fact as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal like Hillary is. That’s why I’d characterize Trump and at least a percentage of supporters as less foolish and truly harmful compared with Godawful Hillary and her Godawful admirers.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 2:06 pm

Not if you plan on using the last 26 scandals that nobody seems to care about

If the electorate is as willfully ignorant or idiotic as you contend they are, then no Republican — Trump or otherwise — is going to beat Hillary.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 2:08 pm

One presidential candidate may be better than another, but none possess the means or even the desire to restore both our lost constitutional order and the culture necessary to sustain it.

I rather doubt that is true. It maybe true of the Dems, and people like Trump and Christie, but I doubt it is true of Cruz, for one example. I’d also like to think that there are candidates who, whatever their view of the Constitution, intend to severely downsize the government. Cruz again, Fiorina and maybe Trump. Not Bush, probably not Rubio and God only knows what He would tell Carson to do.

Not that I’d believe a word out of Trump/s mouth. He makes politicians look trustworthy.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/25/2015 @ 2:11 pm

If the electorate is as willfully ignorant or idiotic as you contend they are, then no Republican — Trump or otherwise — is going to beat Hillary.

You can’t beat a politician by yelling “CROOK!!!” because the voters know they are all crooks. We tried to beat Obama twice on “what an effing liar!” and no one cared. Why try again? It doesn’t work. You have to beat them on policy, for the left-brained, and feelings, for the right-brained.

Trump is not the man to do that. Rather the reverse, actually.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/25/2015 @ 2:15 pm

You have to beat them on policy, for the left-brained, and feelings, for the right-brained.

Quite evidently Kevin M., Trump has got the left-brained on board with his immigration policy PLUS he’s got all the right-brained crying over his immigration policy. So now what?

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/25/2015 @ 2:34 pm

A lot of the people who support him on immigration are doing so based on feelings, not numbers.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/25/2015 @ 2:36 pm

And I guess you’d claim that the Chamber of Commerce supports immigration based on feelings, as if thy had any. Not that they’re right, but that your assertion is unfounded.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/25/2015 @ 2:37 pm

Have you seen John Hawkins 25 best quotes from Donald Trump?

Here’s a good one.- Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren’t criticized are those who don’t take risks.

Here’s another – The more government takes in taxes, the less incentive people have to work. What coal miner or assembly-line worker jumps at the offer of overtime when he knows Uncle Sam is going to take sixty percent or more of his extra pay? . . . Any system that penalizes success and accomplishment is wrong. Any system that discourages work, discourages productivity, discourages economic progress, is wrong. If, on the other hand, you reduce tax rates and allow people to spend or save more of what they earn, they’ll be more industrious; they’ll have more incentive to work hard, and money they earn will add fuel to the great economic machine that energizes our national progress. The result: more prosperity for all—and more revenue for government.
That’s from Time to Get Tough: Making America #1 Again published 2011.

I’ve never heard a Democrat complain about the overtime tax rate, or any tax rate for that matter, being too high.

I think you’ve seen so much of Trump’s television personality, and the way the media has defined him, that the myth is leading you to disparage him, rather than knowledge of where the man really stands.

It’s like the revelation that Trump called the terrorist attack on the WTC. His criticism of Dubya invading Iraq. I had those exact same reservations. In the months gearing up for the invasion of Iraq, I kept thinking why are we doing this? Saddam might be a monster, but since when is it our job to unseat monsters on the world stage? We don’t invade countries because we don’t like their leaders. That’s not what America does. At least not the America I love.

Let’s say you buy a house. You don’t go in and start tearing down the fences. Not if you’re smart. First you find out why that fence is there. Saddam was that fence.
Did we know Saddam was keeping a lid on stuff that was worse, like these ISIS?

Maybe some of us did, but Bush didn’t.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 10/25/2015 @ 2:41 pm

A lot of the people who support him on immigration are doing so based on feelings, not numbers.

I’d agree with that if I believed his tough-nosed rhetoric was totally superficial and not based on what I perceive are glints of nationalistic and even nativistic sentiments from him—eg, his long-time tough stance about trade with Japan and, more recently, China.

I’d have raised an eyebrow about such a reaction in the context of America over 60 or more years ago, during the era of things like Eisenhower’s Operation Wetback or when our culture was far removed from the dishonesty of today’s political correctness run amok. But in the context of Obama’s America? In the context of Nidal-Hasan-istic 2015? Nope.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 2:48 pm

Nationalism and nativism have substantial emotional content. Among other things.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/25/2015 @ 2:54 pm

papertiger (c2d6da) — 10/25/2015 @ 2:41 pm

Interesting observations because it’s strange to sense that people who are so turned off by Donald Trump that they fret about him more than they do — or as much as they do — about Hillary Clinton, or see the two as social-ideological equivalencies, may be less appalled by how liberal or leftwing America has become than I am. Or they’re less fearful than I am by how liberalism has infected far too much of the electorate and created a truly shaky future for this nation.

I feel we’ve reached a desperate point in US history, and while I don’t like the concept of desperate people do desperate things, I also don’t think a desperate situation allows for the casual coffee-klatch conversations of 2012 or 2008, or 2004 or more years ago, when the ruminations of people like George W Bush (“compassionate conservatism!!”) or Karl Rove, or the New York Times token pseudo-conservative columnist, were fine and dandy or not as pathetic as they are in the light of today’s America.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 3:02 pm

An interesting poll from Rasmussen. While they continue to do their insipid “What’s your view of the horse race outcome” polls, they’ve started to do “Clinton vs” polls.

What is most remarkable is not the relative strengths, but that Democrats are forming up around Hillary while the GOP voters are divided — as Patterico shows here.

Yet some GOP candidates beat Trump while others come close, even though a quarter or more of the Republicans are voting “anyone else.” If we have a unified party going into this election, we should win in a landslide.

One of the reasons I think the Democrats are fueling our insurgencies. Divide and conquer is their only path to a win.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/25/2015 @ 3:04 pm

Nationalism and nativism have substantial emotional content.

But not necessarily in the context of decades of unfettered illegal immigration, involving growing cross sections of US society that increasingly reflect the social-political anomie and mediocrity or negative quirkiness of places along the lines of Mexico, Venezuela or the Sharia-Law-ized EU.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 3:08 pm

re #106 – then you were not paying attention to what was being said by the administration.

as far as claiming that SH kept a cap on ISIS – a specious claim. but lets run with it
#1: SH was not a young man , no reason to think he would still have been in power 2 years ago.
#2: according to that reasoning, the Nazi party should have been supported as they capped USSR

seeRpea (9e22e8) — 10/25/2015 @ 3:11 pm

I would vote for Trump if he were the nominee but I can’t see anything that would ever make me think he is the best GOP nominee. Ditto re Fiorina, Bush, Kasich, Jindal, Graham, Pataki, etc.

Cruz and Rubio are the only candidates that I would gladly support, and I’m borderline on Rubio becuase is strength is his charisma, not his policies.

It also surprises me to say that I’m open to Ben Carson. I suspect his inexperience and policies would end up being dealbreakers, but I like and respect him and that goes a long way in politics.

DRJ (15874d) — 10/25/2015 @ 3:17 pm

It’s not Carson’s lack of political experience or policy that concerns me as much as it is his level of decency and naivete. If he isn’t careful to surround himself with trustworthy advisers, then I fear he would be easily devoured by the wolves. There has to be a shrewd understanding of both human nature and the political animal in order to understand how politics works and what the costs are. I just don’t see him with that specific weapon in his cache. It’s what protects and what provides for a nominee.

But I would vote for him, nonetheless.

Dana (86e864) — 10/25/2015 @ 3:26 pm

DRJ,

Carson is also a pretty solid “pro-life” play. I imagine most of his support is from people who have abortion as one of their top issues (and that Trump fails there).

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/25/2015 @ 3:27 pm

This country is desperate, Mark. The last two elections ruined the republic and we went spiraling toward a democratic dictatorship. When the Congress has a majority Republican and still can’t get anything done we have a problem. I can’t figure out how the left runs Congress when they are in power and when we are in power. I do know that if a democrat wins this election we will end up a one party country. And that is a dictatorship.

We are slowly being strangled to death with leftist laws, regulations, rules, bureaucracies, taxes, legal opinions, schools, mandates, entertainment venues and media. If we don’t fight back soon in the political arena the only thing left will be war. Everything goes left any more. Just as we knew SSM would become law we knew Lois Learner would skate and we know soon Hillary! will be declared exonerated just in time to win the Presidency. The fix is in fellas.

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/25/2015 @ 3:28 pm

Mark, how many of those Mexican immigrants have you dealt with? Incompetence and indolence are not two woulds I would use. Uneducated, unsophisticated, often unlettered with low expectations of their fellow man, yes, those they have. But leaving a society to come to one that treats them like shite is not what people who like the old country often do. They are probably more critical of the Mexican government than you are.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/25/2015 @ 3:31 pm

Zarquawi, was already there in the Kurdish zone, and were these fellows,

In the lead-up to the 2003 American invasion of Iraq, CIA director George Tenet believed that Shehata and Yussef Dardiri were both being allowed to operate in Baghdad by Saddam Hussein since May 2002, and used this “intelligence” as part of the bid to tie the dictator to terrorism, suggesting that “Shehata was willing to strike US, Israeli, and Egyptian targets sometime in the future” and stating that he had trained “North Africans” in the use of truck bombs in Afghanistan.[18][19]

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/25/2015 @ 3:32 pm

DRJ,

What exactly is your problem with Fiorina that you lump her with Pataki and Kasich?

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/25/2015 @ 3:32 pm

Mark, how many of those Mexican immigrants have you dealt with? Incompetence and indolence are not two woulds I would use. Uneducated, unsophisticated, often unlettered with low expectations of their fellow man, yes, those they have. But leaving a society to come to one that treats them like **** is not what people who like the old country often do. They are probably more critical of the Mexican government than you are.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/25/2015 @ 3:33 pm

Weird nanny filter.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/25/2015 @ 3:34 pm

I don’t know about you, Kevin M, but I would simply adore watching HRC debate CF.

She fights, is calm, and seems fearless.

This is HRC’s fear, I think. Any d00d who debates her who goes hammer and tongs will be discounted.

That’s no reason to favor CF, I realize. But I would like to see it. And CF is clear that she wants to debate HRC, and looks forward to it.

Simon Jester (c8876d) — 10/25/2015 @ 3:40 pm

Given that Bush is meeting with his family this weekend, and rumor has it he is deciding whether to drop from the race, the donor class may be forced to acknowledge the message from conservative voters.

This was pouting Jeb on Friday (per Tapper):

“If this election is about how we’re going to fight to get nothing done, then I don’t want anything, I don’t want any part of it. I don’t want to be elected president to sit around and see gridlock just become so dominant that people literally are in decline in their lives. That is not my motivation. I’ve got a lot of really cool things I could do other than sit around, be miserable, listening to people demonize me and me feeling compelled to demonize them. That is a joke. Elect Trump if you want that.”

Dana (86e864) — 10/25/2015 @ 3:43 pm

I agree re Fiorina, Simon Jester. She would devour Hillary. Ironically, since Hillary has shamelessly played gender politics from the get-go, if she faces a male candidate, she will simply continue using that crutch. I think because she’s utterly manipulative and will do anything to win, but also I think she is determined to never, ever again let a man humiliate her in public like Obama did when he flippantly told her that she was likable enough. That’s why I would like to see Fiorina go after her. But that alone certainly isn’t reason enough for me to hope she’s the nominee. But I wouldn’t have any objections if she ends up getting the nod.

Dana (86e864) — 10/25/2015 @ 3:47 pm

hopefully not rhetorical,

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/do_hillarys_lies_matter.html

I guess I’m in the second category, because some of trump’s ill advised previous statements,

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/25/2015 @ 3:59 pm

Fiorina doesn’t do anything for me. I have a hard time getting past her failures at HP and her sad Senate campaign. She has a lot going for her but she always seems to fizzle in the end.

DRJ (15874d) — 10/25/2015 @ 4:21 pm

The Nazis declare war on us.

I just want to get that out there.

Sounds like Jeb just gave the Donald an endorsement.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 10/25/2015 @ 4:22 pm

As for the Bushes, they aren’t that smart. They are decent people who are incredibly good at networking and knowing how to work people, but their people skills aren’t working this time because the political world has changed so much.

DRJ (15874d) — 10/25/2015 @ 4:23 pm

This country is desperate, Mark.

And if you think things are bad right now, imagine the US becoming as dysfunctional and notorious as aspects of Mexico, Venezuela or Argentina/Brazil — or eroding sections of Europe — are or have long been. That very well could be in the cards for America in upcoming decades, using the lethargic and interminably second-rate characteristics of California or a good portion of urban America as a window into the country’s future in general.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 4:42 pm

I agree that Carson has spent a lot of time among people who value ability rather than subterfuge. I’m afraid his administration would be a disaster unless he can get some advisers who have his values yet also understand the evil in Washington and among the foreign powers in the world. I don’t know how many people like that there are out there.

MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 10/25/2015 @ 4:46 pm

Mark, how many of those Mexican immigrants have you dealt with? Incompetence and indolence are not two woulds I would use.

Kevin M, I’ve said in the past that the average person in the long-distressed or half-crocked nations of the world generally aren’t exactly sitting around eating bon bons and watching TV all day long. Life can be quite grueling and miserable in such societies, not helped by the prevailing mindset (or city-of-Detroit-style political orientation) and socio-cultural preferences of many of the people in such places.

Moreover, it comes down to percentages, since even the worst nations of the world have at least X percentage of bright, talented, resourceful, successful, stable citizens, but also Y percentage of people who are the opposite of that. When nations have too much of the latter instead of the latter, that’s when decent, sensible folks are forced to vote with their feet and the moving van.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 4:49 pm

why does mexico, readily deport those from any country, who enter illegally, why do they have strong property qualifications on residency, not to mention citizenship,

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/25/2015 @ 4:52 pm

As for the Bushes, they aren’t that smart.

My definition of “aren’t that smart” is when such people fall for the foolish stereotype of conservatives and conservatism, in which they believe it necessary to use the qualifier of “compassionate” before the word “conservative.”

(and errata above: “latter instead of the FORMER”)

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 4:53 pm

Kevin M – Nationalism and nativism have substantial emotional content.

Federalist #2:

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.

Modern “conservatives” are blank slate progressives. They believe populations are interchangeable, and that culture, religion, ethnicity, and race don’t matter. Our forefathers understood the straightforward advantages of kinship and shared habits of mind. We blind ourselves with ideology, and then conclude we are wiser.

scrutineer (b7d257) — 10/25/2015 @ 4:56 pm

And I guess you’d claim that the Chamber of Commerce supports immigration based on feelings…

Jefferson: “[M]erchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.”

The Chamber of Commerce wants cheap labor and new customers.

scrutineer (b7d257) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:05 pm

Castro has been supreme leader of Cuba since The Eisenhower admin.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:08 pm

and that was in part because Mexico sent him away in ’56, on the Granma, his boat, they didn’t advise the Batista regime however, Mexico has provided sanctuary to practically every insurgency
in the region, but when they have had their own rebels, like the Zapatistas, they have dealt with them ruthlessly,

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:12 pm

The following is from Free Republic:

Unreal – Paul Ryan Announces Chamber of Commerce Lobbyist Will Be His Chief of Staff…
The Conservative Treehouse ^ | 10/25/15 | Sundance
Posted on 10/25/2015, 6:34:02 PM by M. Thatcher

With this announcement representative Paul Ryan is openly announcing his intention to destroy the conservative elements within the republican party. And yet again, its doubtful anyone will try to stop him.

The president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donohue, recently announced his intentions to eliminate opposition to their progressive big government positions and destroy fiscal conservatives (Tea Party).

Tom Donohue demands: ♦ approval of the TPP trade deal, ♦ continuation of ObamaCare, ♦ comprehensive immigration reform to include amnesty, and ♦ federal education Common Core education standards.

Previously we explained how deep the tentacles of the CoC reach within the Republican party – SEE HERE.

Now today, to put the cherry on the cake, Paul Ryan announces he will appoint Chamber of Commerce Lobbyist David Hoppe as his Chief of Staff as Speaker of the House.

ropelight (ff9f57) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:13 pm

Scrutieer, The Chamber of Commerce, like ay other organization, has it’s agenda. So what? the AMA has one, so does the NRA and AARP. Again, so what? At least these organizations lay out their agendas which is more than ay of us can say about the democrat/socialist/communist/labor party of the United States. They want to “fundamentally change” America but into what is the question.

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:13 pm

My point, which I made at the time, is that some wanted to say, iirc, that it was wrong to refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, always

Only if one of them is a lesser weevil. In 1996 I did not (and even in hindsight still do not) think there was any reason to prefer Dole over Mr Clinton or vice versa. I am having trouble deciding whether Trump or Mrs Clinton is the lesser weevil, and if it’s that close I may as well not vote for either. But I don’t think Clinton will get the nomination. Michelle will jump in some time early next year.

Milhouse (af0c3c) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:13 pm

They believe populations are interchangeable, and that culture, religion, ethnicity, and race don’t matter.

In turn, I think too many people, including quite a few Republicans/conservatives, aren’t as laser-point guided on the importance and role of ideological biases in shaping a place or society. Yea, there are conservative or rightwing places out there (in the US and elsewhere) that are lousy and pathetic, and liberal or leftwing places that are wonderful and inspiring. But overall, most of the bleak-and-lame zones throughout the world tilt to the left, most of the less-bleak-and-lame (and to be as flexible as possible, I won’t even say “shining-and-uplifting”) zones throughout the world tilt to the right.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:13 pm

The Chamber of Commerce wants cheap labor and new customers.

Full of people who have the socio-economic means to — when push comes to shove — rather easily vote with their feet and the moving van.

There are well-off, well-educated citizens of societies like Mexico (a mix of limousine liberals and country-club conservatives) who are known to sequester themselves behind high-walled, high-security compounds. They apparently live the high life in those settings. But do they ever truly feel proud of and confident in their country?

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:19 pm

Jefferson: “[M]erchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.”

Amazing how the quirks and foibles of human nature don’t change generation after generation.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:22 pm

The irony is that Trump was asked to pledge to support the Republican nominee but that Republicans have said they would not support Trump if he is nominated.

AZ Bob (34bb80) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:24 pm

I do not know the context from which you drew that Jefferson quote , Mark, however I will say that as a “merchant” and a former soldier who did a lot of killin’ and a might of bleedin’ for this country if Jefferson had said that to me there would have been two more duelists on that field in New Jersey. And someone else would have been the third President because I rarely miss. How would it be if instead he said: ” Laborers have no family. The mere spot they live, eat and sleep does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their pay.”?

I resent that kind of condescending bullsh!t.

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:35 pm

DRJ–

“Failures at HP”

BY the time they hired Fiorina, HP had taken two disastrous actions: they cut lose the founding division of their company (now called Agilent) and they dove headlong into PCs. Fiorina come along in 1999. The stock hit its all time high (about 80) in April of 2000, at the don-com peak. Looking at the chart it’s a spike, and obviously based on irrational exuberance, not value. Opponents use this to compare stock prices, but it’s a lie, mostly.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=HPQ+Interactive#symbol=HPQ;range=my

By 2001, there were two competing ideas at HP: close the computer division and retreat to printers and scanners and such — which would have meant the layoff of more than half of HP’s 80,000 employees (this was the Hewlett plan as the Hewlett heirs did not want to risk their legacies) — or go big and buy the equally failing Compaq (also about 80,000 employees) and become the big fish in a shrinking pond.

If HP had chosen to shrink down, they would have shed over 40,000 jobs in an afternoon. If Compaq and not been bought by someone else, they would have failed losing all 80,000 jobs soon thereafter.

That should be the baseline to judge Fiorina by 120,000 jobs lost not some mythical zero, which wasn’t on the table.

Instead, Fiorina chose to buy Compaq. There were some redundancies. Over the next two years HP+Compaq shed 26,000 employees, while hiring 5,000 others, ending in 2003 or so witn 141,000. Any analysis that treats things rationally shows that she SAVED alomst 100,000 jobs by her actions.

Before she was gone, she had hired more people and left the combined company with about as many employees as the two combined when she came in.

This was not a failure. It did however, cause turmoil and like baseball you fire the manager.

Since then, the company has grown with further acquisitions, and now numbers over 320,000. Yes, they’ve struggled over the years and their stock has never been as high as it was in 2000. BUt not many are, and many that were as high (e.g. 3Com, Gateway, Worldcom) now sleep with the fishes.

Fiorina led HP through TERRIBLE times, and it survived while many around it died. How is this a failure?

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:40 pm

How I wish I could edit that.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:41 pm

if the alternative to Mr. The Donald is fruit loop ben carthon then

christ that’s just sad

happyfeet (831175) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:41 pm

jefferson was a farmer, not a merchant, Hamilton was the one that appreciated the latter,

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:41 pm

I selected option 2, and for those who chose option 3, I ask whether they would be quite willing to — by contrast — vote for Jeb Bush?

Yes, absolutely. He was a decent governor and would make a decent president. I’m not supporting him in the primary, because he’s gone out of his way to tell me and my sort that he doesn’t want our support. But if it comes down to him and any Democrat, then if I lived in a swing state I would definitely vote for him, and I would encourage every voter in such a state to vote for him.

However, the only way my state could ever be in contention is in a Republican sweep of ’72 and ’84 proportions, in which case it won’t matter who wins my state. So I have the luxury of voting my conscience. Could I still vote for Jeb? No, but I might vote for his running mate, even though that requires voting for him too.

Milhouse (af0c3c) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:42 pm

what kind of dork would agree to be jebfilth’s running mate

even palin has more smarts than that

happyfeet (831175) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:43 pm

Remember the people who didn’t want to vote for Romney? Some of them probably like Trump now. They should understand how it feels to dislike a candidate so much that they didn’t want to vote. Similarly, those who couldn’t imagine staying home in Romney vs Obama should think twice about boycotting Trump.

The difference is that Romney is a decent person, someone one can look up to, even if one doesn’t like all his policies. Trump is not.

Milhouse (af0c3c) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:44 pm

oh. Kasich i bet.

happyfeet (831175) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:44 pm

Romney is NOT a decent person he’s a weirdo hyper-entitled harvard trash douche what paved the way for obamacare

he can wickle my pickle

happyfeet (831175) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:46 pm

Narciso, I’m a merchant but I can still appreciate the work effort of the farmer and the laborer and the craftsman and the professional. I would never condescend to any of them nor discount their contribution to a vital economy and society.

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:47 pm

153.Romney is NOT a decent person he’s a weirdo hyper-entitled harvard trash douche what paved the way for obamacare

A weirdo, happyfeet? Now there’s the pot calling the kettle black!

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:49 pm

why does mexico, readily deport those from any country, who enter illegally, why do they have strong property qualifications on residency, not to mention citizenship,

Now, here I would squee3ze the Mexicans. IF we are going to have a plan that allows some of the illegals to stay as legal residents, they have to grant significant rights to Americans in Mexico. Equal treatment under law. Ownership rights throughout Mexico (sorry Sr Slim). I’d like Baja, too, but that may be harder to come by.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:49 pm

i seek power over nobody Mr. Reverend except i really wish crazypickles at work just. please. stop. harassing. me.

Mitt craves it so so desperately he ran for president something like 112 times (including this year but he got hornswoggled by jebfilth)

happyfeet (831175) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:52 pm

It’s amazing how a statement can be misread and then have the conversation twist in strange directions.

Hoagie said that the proponents of the illegals were acting out of emotion. I said that the Chamber of Commerce was certainly NOT acting out of emotion (not having any).

And now we are talking about Jefferson.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:53 pm

Hey, happyfeet, is there anyone you LIKE? Besides me, of course.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:53 pm

i like oodles of people but these days i accentuate the negative

i blame the zeitgeist

but not really mostly I just wanna finish out the whole dark happyfeet thing to the bitter end of food stamp’s reign

happyfeet (831175) — 10/25/2015 @ 5:55 pm

food stamp’s *malignant* reign i mean

happyfeet (831175) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:04 pm

We have it bad? A very tough choice for Demcrata! https://t.co/N5aeGWF28y

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:10 pm

119. Mark, how many of those Mexican immigrants have you dealt with? Incompetence and indolence are not two woulds I would use. Uneducated, unsophisticated, often unlettered with low expectations of their fellow man, yes, those they have. But leaving a society to come to one that treats them like **** is not what people who like the old country often do. They are probably more critical of the Mexican government than you are.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/25/2015 @ 3:33 pm

I can’t and won’t speak for Mark, but I’ve dealt with literally tons of Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal. And immigrants from further south as well. We have to remember that a large plurality if not a bare majority if illegal immigrants crossing the Mexican border are not Mexican. In fact if we are to talk about illegal immigrants in toto, Mexicans are definitely in the minority when we consider that 40% of illegal immigrants arrive here legally and then overstay their visas.

And we can’t afford the insane level immigration we currently have. Frankly I find your derisive comments about people who are against our levels of immigration as “nativists” not so much insulting as revealing. You don’t have an argument, so you resort to insults.

The fact of the matter is that the American middle class blossomed in a period of low immigration. Following a boom in immigration from the last decades of the 19th century until approximately 1920 Congress passed laws restricting immigration. And then post WWII until 1970 middle income Americans saw their wages increase. After 1970 the effects of Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration reform and social engineering act (I added a couple of words; SHOCKA, the Democrats had to lie about their bill not having the effect of social engineering on society) began to be felt. Now thanks to this crushing wave of uneducated, often unlettered, immigrants wages went flat by 2000 and is now dropping.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/042415-749638-congressional-report-documents-immigration-damage-to-middle-class.htm

Then there’s even more damage immigrants do to our economy. The majority of them are receiving some form of welfare.

http://www.cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011

Thirteen years after welfare reform, the share of immigrant-headed households (legal and illegal) with a child (under age 18) using at least one welfare program continues to be very high. This is partly due to the large share of immigrants with low levels of education and their resulting low incomes — not their legal status or an unwillingness to work. The major welfare programs examined in this report include cash assistance, food assistance, Medicaid, and public and subsidized housing.

Among the findings:

In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.

Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.

A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.

…Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of program.

High welfare use by immigrant-headed households with children is partly explained by the low education level of many immigrants. Of households headed by an immigrant who has not graduated high school, 80 percent access the welfare system, compared to 25 percent for those headed by an immigrant who has at least a bachelor’s degree.

…If we exclude the primary refugee-sending countries, the share of immigrant households with children using at least one welfare program is still 57 percent.

Welfare use tends to be high for both new arrivals and established residents. In 2009, 60 percent of households with children headed by an immigrant who arrived in 2000 or later used at least one welfare program; for households headed by immigrants who arrived before 2000 it was 55 percent.

For all households (those with and without children), the use rates were 37 percent for households headed by immigrants and 22 percent for those headed by natives.

Although most new legal immigrants are barred from using some welfare for the first five years, this provision has only a modest impact on household use rates because most immigrants have been in the United States for longer than five years; the ban only applies to some programs; some states provide welfare to new immigrants with their own money; by becoming citizens immigrants become eligible for all welfare programs; and perhaps most importantly, the U.S.-born children of immigrants (including those born to illegal immigrants) are automatically awarded American citizenship and are therefore eligible for all welfare programs at birth…

It doesn’t matter where these immigrants come from. They drive down wages and indulge in welfare. Then there’s the crime. Immigrants, particularly the illegal kind, commit crime all out of proportion to their numbers (all of a sudden black lives don’t matter when they’re targeted because of their race and killed by illegal immigrant Hispanic gang members). The Federal Bureau of Prisons reports that over 26% of their prisoners are not US citizens. Non citizen adults are about 9% of the population.

Overall, this tidal wave of immigration has had a negative effect on the US economy and consequently on American citizens, both in terms of their effect on wages and the cost of services that they are provided. And that would include the cost of incarceration (it’s beyond debate that the minimal taxes illegal immigrants pay doesn’t even come within the same time zone of compensating for what they cost society, and I haven’t seen any numbers for the legal immigrants that the economic benefits outweigh the costs as they are almost all subsidized to some degree as well). It’s almost like somebody could have predicting importing huge volumes of largely uneducated, low skilled immigrants would have had that effect.

Oh, wait! People did.

We can’t ignore problems unique to Hispanic immigrants, both illegal and legal. One is that with the border so close when they commit crimes and can make bail they can be across it within hours. Then there is their Catholicism. And I can say this as a Catholic; their Catholicism is not my Catholicism. They are largely steeped in liberation theology. Not only is this not my Catholicism, it’s not even Christianity. It is essentially a thin veneer over their Marxism.

See Venezuela for a prime example.

Pope Benedict XVI did a masterful job of explaining, back when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, of exposing liberation theology for what it actually is; a heresy. He also rooted out and expelled priests who espoused it. But he couldn’t get them all. And unfortunately now we have Pope Francis. Officially he’s opposed to liberation theology but being born and raised in Latin America and being steeped in it himself liberation theologians have to become pretty extreme before he notices them. For the most part he doesn’t notice, the same way a fish doesn’t notice water.

Frankly, since Vatican II my Catholicism has largely stopped being the official version of the Church’s Catholicism as they adopted more and more of Cesar Chavez’s POV in their social justice teaching. To the point where many Catholics, native born and immigrant, believe that opposing an ever expanding welfare state is as grave a sin as conducting an abortion. It’s not, but that’s the message they get from their priests and unfortunately form the . But discussion of the damage liberation theology

Steve57 (a0050a) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:11 pm

you can infer much by who each party hires, like Mike ‘Iceberg’ Murphy, or this fellow,

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/amandacarpenter/2008/10/28/romney_supporters_trashing_palin

Nicolle Wallace, originally worked for Jeb as well, and we know her story,

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:12 pm

‘stuck between scylla and charybdis’ heh Colonel,

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:15 pm

I understand there are two views about HP and Fiorina, or three if we include Jerry Sonnenfield. I happen to side with this one.

DRJ (15874d) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:16 pm

I live in a place where Hispanics (illegal, legal and Texas born) are the majority. With rare exception, they love Mexico. It’s true they probably don’t like the Mexican government but they don’t like the American government either.

DRJ (15874d) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:20 pm

well HP has continued to stumble since they dismissed Fiorina, one CEO who had some interesting morals clause type matter, another rocky merger, with another company,

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:22 pm

Just kinda depressing the number of people choosing option #2 – voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

Not voting for the lesser evil means resigning oneself to the greater evil. When it’s “your money or your life”, only an idiot refuses to choose. But if the two evils are equal, and you really have no preference between them, that’s the time to take a principled stand.

Milhouse (af0c3c) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:25 pm

It’s true they probably don’t like the Mexican government but they don’t like the American government either.

Problem is DRJ, they don’t like Americans and they don’t like America. They rarely associate with Americans outside of what is required and they don’t want to be American they just want to remain Mexicans in America.

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:32 pm

Not where I live, Hoagie, but every place is different.

DRJ (15874d) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:34 pm

Damn my optical mouse!

But discussion of the damage liberation theology has done to the Church is for another day. More importantly is the damage it’s done to this country. Look at Kali and see your future.

If we get Hillary! we get Kali. We’re all hosed. After four or eight years of her, there really will be no point in voting. Just like in Kali, where the middle class really is taking a nose dive, we’ll have a one party state that’s ruled entirely for the benefit of the extremely wealthy, those who work for leviathan as the asylum keepers, and anyone with an EBT card. And since the middle class can’t leave for greener pastures like it has largely done in Kali, then there’s an EBT card in the future of many of those formerly in the dwindling middle class.

Which, let’s face it, is exactly how Hillary! and the Democrats want it. Beggars can’t be choosers.

Unfortunately we’re likely to be hosed either way, as the establishment Republicans largely support our insane, suicidal immigration policy. Paul Ryan has said and done very disturbing things on the issue of immigration, he has stated since locking up the nomination for speaker that he still believes in big government doing big things (Aaargh!!), he still wants to do big things as speaker, and “comprehensive immigration reform” is only off the table while Prom Queen is President.

So I’m willing to bet that it’s back on the table if the Wicked Witch of Chappaqua gets into office. I guarantee it’s out the door and on the President’s desk within a year if Jeb “Act of Love” Bush or Marco “Schumer’s Republican” Rubio is elected.

I’m not sure about the others, as I don’t put much faith in any politician. We were treated just the other day to Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), normally a reliable conservative, arguing that the Senate’s sentencing reform bill is principled conservatism at its finest. Which is just insane. There is no conservative case for developing amnesia and forgetting all the lessons we learned since the 1980s about driving crime down. Which is precisely what our current sentencing laws helped do.

There is no conservative case to be made for higher crime. And likewise I’m afraid some of the others particularly Carson and Fiorina would try to make open borders a conservative cause. Which is equally insane, and why I expect somebody to try to make the case.

I’m not making a case for Trump, because I really don’t like him. I’m hoping we get a President Cruz, as he doesn’t seem to want to drive the country off a cliff and commit national suicide. But on the issue of national suicide I’m convinced Trump would be better than Hillary! After all, Hillary! and the Democrats have committing national suicide high on their agenda. They’ve always hated the US, and this is their chance to take it off life support, put a do not resuscitate order in its file, and withhold food and water.

I don’t know what Trump would actually do, but at least he hasn’t openly embraced national suicide as a goal like Hillary! And, unfortunately Bush and Rubio.

Steve57 (a0050a) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:37 pm

You say why you think Donald Trump as the Republican nominee will guarantee the presidency to Hillary, but you haven’t said why you don’t believe that will be a problem — or as much of a problem — for some other Republican nominee.

S/he did say. Romney got the white women’s vote. Trump can’t and won’t.

Milhouse (af0c3c) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:41 pm

You’re doing what the GOP establishment does and viewing Trump as a buffoon who is misleading dumb voters. Stop focusing on Trump. He’s a symptom, not a disease.

That’s how I view him: as a disease and a buffoon who is misleading dumb voters. The narrative that his supporters are a giant mass of small-conservative folks who are fed up with the GOP’s support for big government, in my view, ignores the fact that his big-government positions do not alienate these people in the slightest. His supporters don’t care about policy. They are, by and large, low-information voters wowed by celebrity and contemptuous of policy.

People who see no difference between Trump and Hillary are effectively swing voters. It’s better they stay home because, if they did vote, they might go either way.

I wouldn’t say I “see no difference” but I despise both and truly have no confidence that one is better than another. They both frighten the bejeezus out of me. To me they are both moronic big government losers.

If it’s Hillary vs. Trump, I’m out. If that makes me a “swing voter” then I guess I’m a swing voter.

Patterico (86c8ed) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:41 pm

Maybe they are low information voters but the ones I know don’t trust politicians. They’ve decided supporting someone who says what he thinks — no matter what that may be — is preferable to supporting people who lie to them. That’s one reason I think Carson may ultimately do better than Trump.

DRJ (15874d) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:45 pm

With rare exception, they love Mexico.

That may be part of the problem, DRJ, in which people aren’t discerning enough to know the quality and value of something, or the lack of such. I’d feel more confident in the people of Mexico if they were ashamed of and embarrassed by their society, certainly by all its shantytowns, abject poverty, low academic standing, pervasive corruption, and high crime rates, particularly regarding narco gangs leaving chopped heads and chopped limbs strewn about the landscape.

I was watching a video several months ago of a person from Mexico relocated to Japan — a generally non-liberal, non-leftist nation — commenting on how he can leave personal possessions, even rather valuable ones, out on the street and be confident in knowing they won’t be stolen or, better yet, even returned to the owner if the missing items come with identification. He said that would never happen in his native Mexico.

That Steve57’s post #163 will be shrugged off by a fairly large number of Democrats/liberals (certainly limousine liberals) and chamber-of-commerce Republican/conservatives (or country-club conservatives who count money first, respect for country second) irks me to no end if they’re the same ones who will happily, casually, nonchalantly (and with but a limited sense of self-awareness and sheepishness) find themselves voting with their feet and moving van, and pretending that the impact of their politics and voting habits had nothing to do with their decision.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:52 pm

Yeah, Carson is certainly more honest than Trump, who I believe lies about his net worth — and any other uncomfortable fact that could harm his ego.

Patterico (86c8ed) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:52 pm

I don’t believe in the end of the world. 4 years of Hillary would certainly prime the pump for 12 or 16 years of Republican presidents.

Gustav (f3da02) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:59 pm

If Trump is the Republican candidate then the Libertarians would have to run Satan himself before they lost my vote.

Gustav (f3da02) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:00 pm

Trump is a scary personality… but more scary than Hillary! Clinton?! I don’t think so. I think Clinton has much more potential to wreak havoc on our nation. In so many different ways.
Trump will wreak as much havoc, just do it in different ways. But unlike Clinton, he will be wearing the (fraudulently assumed) mantle of conservatism. Which will be a disaster for conservatism.

Instead of wringing our hands the question to be pondered is, how do we get Cruz/Fiorina/Carson to be nominated?

kishnevi (28fa9f) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:00 pm

“Instead of wringing our hands the question to be pondered is, how do we get Cruz/Fiorina/Carson to be nominated?”
kishnevi (28fa9f) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:00 pm

This is the right question to ask. This is what we need to work towards.

felipe (56556d) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:06 pm

closer then any time in a decade,

http://www.france24.com/en/20151025-scioli-leads-argentina-vote-may-face-runoff-exit-polls

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:06 pm

I wouldn’t say I “see no difference” but I despise both and truly have no confidence that one is better than another. They both frighten the bejeezus out of me.

I’m trying to remember what your overall reactions were towards Obama back in 2008, although I don’t recall (and, yea, I may be totally wrong) your expressing as much contempt and chagrin about him as you do about Trump. However, I do have a memory of your making a bit of nice-nice towards Barry in the midst of various forumers directing fierce ire his way, while you, by contrast, stated you thought he was basically a good man.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:15 pm

171. Not where I live, Hoagie, but every place is different.

DRJ (15874d) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:34 pm

Hoagie is onto something, DRJ. I lived in parts of Kali where Hispanics are openly hostile to the US, in particular to us gringos, and have been for a long time. I recall after Prop 13 passed in the late 1970s, because people were literally being taxed out of their homes, especially the elderly on fixed incomes, Mexican groups and individuals were publishing naked threats against white people. That they “wouldn’t want to be white and a homeowner” when Hispanics took over the state.

Apparently by saving their homes, these white people were denying something that rightly belonged to Hispanics. Naturally the Kali Democratic party encouraged this. I’ve always envisioned the Kali Democratic party like this:

https://otrwjam.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/pancho-villa2.jpg

The Democrats will openly admit that Kali was stolen from Mexico, and that’s why they favor Mexico over the US. Naturally this only encourages the hatred Mexicans have for white US citizens. Even when they are US citizens themselves.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/26/sports/la-sp-0626-plaschke-gold-cup-20110626

Again, it’s red, white and boo

Mexico rallies behind overwhelming support at Rose Bowl.

June 26, 2011|BILL PLASCHKE

It was imperfectly odd. It was strangely unsettling. It was uniquely American.

On a balmy early Saturday summer evening, the U.S soccer team played for a prestigious championship in a U.S. stadium … and was smothered in boos.

Its fans were vastly outnumbered. Its goalkeeper was bathed in a chanted obscenity. Even its national anthem was filled with the blowing of air horns and bouncing of beach balls.

Yeah, this is what passes for “uniquely American” at the offices of the LA slimes. This Plaschke dude then interviews the one guy in the crowd, a Victor Sanchez who claims to love America, just not the soccer team. That’s the one guy the reporter quotes who says they were just booing the team.

No, they weren’t just booing the team.

As if he could possibly be representative of all 80,000 of the mostly US citizens in name but proud Mexicans at heart who were jeering and disrespecting the national anthem. As if they love the country, just not the team. No, they hate both.

The few Hispanics who were in the crowd rooting for the US were actually afraid for their safety.

“Obviously … the support that Mexico has on the night like tonight makes it a home game for them,” said U.S. Coach Bob Bradley, choosing his words carefully. “It’s part of something we have to deal with on the night.”

It wasn’t just something. It was everything. I’ve never heard more consistent loud cheering for one team here, from the air horns to the ” Ole” chants with each Mexico pass, all set to the soundtrack of a low throbbing roar that began in the parking lot about six hours before the game and continued long into the night.

Even when the U.S. scored the first two goals, the Mexico cheers stayed strong, perhaps inspiring El Tri to four consecutive goals against a U.S. team that seemed dazed and confused. Then when it ended, and the Mexican players had danced across the center of the field in giddy wonder while the U.S. players had staggered to the sidelines in disillusionment, the madness continued.

Because nobody left. Rather amazingly, the Mexico fans kept bouncing and cheering under headbands and sombreros, nobody moving an inch, the giant Rose Bowl jammed for a postgame trophy ceremony for perhaps the first time in its history.

And, yes, when the U.S. team was announced one final time, it was once again booed.

I’ve encountered the same open hostility in Dallas. I didn’t go to the Trump rally at the American Airlines Center because, again, I’m not a fan. But a lot of people did, which made it newsworthy.

Another thing that made it newsworthy, although a great many PC news outlets refused to report, was the few dozen venem and oscenity spewing Hispanic protesters harassing and threatening people entering and leaving the event.

Ironically, these La Raza and MEChA trained Mexican nationalists reserve their strongest hatred for Hispanics who don’t hate the US. I was clued into this by a truly unique Texas phenomenon. A Hispanic American whose family fought against Mexico in the Texas revolution. He doesn’t consider himself a Mexican in any way, and refuses to call himself a Mexican American or any variant of that term. And when he went to college, in Texas, he caught hell and was insulted by many of the other Hispanics on campus. In their eyes he was a “race traitor.”

Steve57 (a0050a) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:21 pm

closer then any time in a decade,

And that’s in spite of the current leftist president making a big mess of Argentina. IOW, it should be a cakewalk for a right-leaning successor to Cristina Kirchner, but it isn’t.

From that standpoint, Argentinians are actually no worse than all the Americans who get dreamy eyed about the idea of a Hillary in the White House and wave off even the worst of messes and corruption that will reflect the legacy of her former boss.

Liberalism is said to be a form of mental illness, and it apparently affects most of humanity, from North America to South America, and beyond.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:23 pm

In their eyes he was a “race traitor.”

If leftism were a race or ethnicity, that would be the only race or ethnicity (or nationality, or gender, or sexuality, or religion, etc) they’d really give a damn about and would want to uphold, honor and protect.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:28 pm

179. If Trump is the Republican candidate then the Libertarians would have to run Satan himself before they lost my vote.

Gustav (f3da02) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:00 pm

You’re in luck. There’s absolutely no chance of that happening because Satan is already the Democratic party frontrunner.

Steve57 (a0050a) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:29 pm

Hey, Steve. There’s also the common occurrence at the old Olympic Auditorium, where the Hispanics cheered the Mexican boxers and threw emptied beer cups full of piss on the Anglos. Real nice people.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:30 pm

In the months gearing up for the invasion of Iraq, I kept thinking why are we doing this? Saddam might be a monster, but since when is it our job to unseat monsters on the world stage? We don’t invade countries because we don’t like their leaders. That’s not what America does. At least not the America I love.

Isn’t it? Why not? Leaving Hussein in charge of Iraq was simply not an option. We were at war with the international Islamist terror network of which al Qaeda was part, and he was an integral part of that network. He was dead set on developing WMD, and the sanctions that were reining him in were crumbling and unsustainable. Nobody knew how advanced his weapons program was, and what sort of stockpile he might already have. He was in blatant violation of the 1992 ceasefire, he was firing at our planes, he had tried to assassinate a former US president.

Removing him from power was already settled US policy, passed by Congress in 1998, signed by Bill Clinton, and agreed to by all. The only question was when to do this. Was 2003 the right time, or could we wait another year or two while we finished up in Afghanistan and perhaps did something about North Korea. In hindsight, knowing what we do now about the state of his weapons programs, we could have waited, but eventually we would have had to do it no matter what.

Let’s say you buy a house. You don’t go in and start tearing down the fences. Not if you’re smart. First you find out why that fence is there. Saddam was that fence.
Did we know Saddam was keeping a lid on stuff that was worse, like these ISIS?

That’s nonsense. Hussein was not keeping a lid on anything. He was working together with al Qaeda and the rest of the Jihadist network. ISIS didn’t exist. It arose not out of our intervention in Iraq but out of our later abandonment of it, and out of our vacillation on Syria.

Milhouse (af0c3c) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:53 pm

There’s also the common occurrence at the old Olympic Auditorium, where the Hispanics cheered the Mexican boxers and threw emptied beer cups full of piss on the Anglos. Real nice people.

When was the last time this happened? 1980?

Gustav (f3da02) — 10/25/2015 @ 7:59 pm

yes, the problem lay more with the sunni tribesmen who formed the ranks of the Golden Square, the predecessor to the Baath, and who march seemingly with little resistance into the Islamic State,

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/25/2015 @ 8:01 pm

well there was a senate candidate down here, mr, Invictus, which came close to your pledge,

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/25/2015 @ 8:15 pm

Actually we didn’t get too much of Patterico’s opinion on Obama back in 08. As I remember it, PP was knocked offline by a series of net type disasters.
He had an anonymous complaint turn the server company against him. A series of tech type break downs. Kept him off the air most of that season.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 10/25/2015 @ 8:21 pm

the Wicked Witch of Chappaqua

Make that the Wicked Witch of Westchester. I’ve been calling her that ever since she bought the house there in 2000. (Before that my name for her was Lady Macbeth.)

Milhouse (af0c3c) — 10/25/2015 @ 8:23 pm

Saddam, had wiped out a good portion of the original Baathist, leaving his own Tikriti clan, almost entirely in charge of everything, in addition to purging the Shia and the Kurds,

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/25/2015 @ 8:28 pm

something, like might be contemplated here,

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/saudi-arabia-house-saud-disarray-224829498.html#XF7kqpm

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/25/2015 @ 8:31 pm

why do I say that,

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/saudi-arabia-s-new-interior-minister-and-old-wahhabi-habits_664111.html

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/25/2015 @ 8:43 pm

175. Maybe they are low information voters but the ones I know don’t trust politicians. They’ve decided supporting someone who says what he thinks — no matter what that may be — is preferable to supporting people who lie to them. That’s one reason I think Carson may ultimately do better than Trump.

DRJ (15874d) — 10/25/2015 @ 6:45 pm

I don’t believe you have to be a LIV to support Trump. I’m a pretty High Information Voter (no, I wasn’t going to write that I’m a pretty HIV) and I can’t and won’t believe a word that politicians tell me. And yes, that includes our beloved Ted Cruz. Because of things like this:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/10/mike-lees-bogus-conservative-case-for-criminal-justice-reform.php

…Since when do conservatives favor empowering judges, a great many of whom are left-wingers, over relying on fixed rules that Congress (not bureaucrats) can control? Lee’s reform is an invitation to bleeding-heart liberal and ideologically leftist judges to put criminals back on the street much sooner than is consistent with protecting the public safety, and much sooner than the public is likely to prefer.

Conservatives also favor similar treatment for similarly situated individuals. Increasing the discretion judges have over sentencing is inconsistent with this principle. Criminals lucky enough to appear before liberal judges will tend to fare significantly better than criminals who commit the same offense under the same basic circumstances but find themselves before tough-minded jurists.

Lee goes on to contend that his proposed legislation is grounded in the principle of forgiveness. I’m surprised that a mind as formidable as Senator Lee’s embraces such a fatuous — such a question-begging — view…

Unlike Paul Mirengoff, one of the several great minds at Power Line, I can no longer be surprised. Did Mike Lee lie to his constituents when he ran for election? I’m not one of them, and I am not aware he made any promises regarding the criminal justice system, so you’d have to ask them. But he ran as a conservative, and clearly he is not. Whether he believes he’s a conservative or not I can’t say, but he clearly can’t articulate a coherent set of conservative principles. Reading his op-ed is almost like reading something written by David Brooks, the tame NYT house “conservative” who is also no conservative. And constantly demonstrates that fact for a living.

“If it’s not broken, let’s start breaking things until it is” is not a conservative principle. Yet that is exactly what Lee is doing (read more of the excellent work the people at Power Line, or Bill Otis who blogs at Crime and Consequences, have done on the subject). So it was dismaying to see someone like Lee adopt criminal sentencing reform as his cause.

So many so-called conservatives clearly aren’t. Some are obviously lying when they call themselves that. Some may charitably be given the benefit of the doubt and are probably just clueless. Either way, they will all let you down.

Sen. Cruz is right; people are sick and tired of electing people who promise one thing, then deliver another. And I’m well past tired of them telling me I’m going to like the s**t sandwiches they keep serving up better than what they told me I’d be getting.

Is Ted Cruz lying to me? He doesn’t get the option of being clueless; that option is unavailable to him as he’s too sharp and he says the right things. Most of the time he does the right thing. Conservative Review gives him an A rating saying he votes 96% of the time for the “Liberty Agenda.”

Cruz was spot on about Kerry, for instance, saying he couldn’t vote to confirm him given his track record of supporting treaties and international negotiations that undermine our national security. Only one Republican Senator on the Foreign Relations committee tried to make Kerry’s testimony to the effect that Prom Queen could do an end run around Congress with the Iran deal. That wasn’t Cruz (that was Risch of Idaho), but then he’s not on that committee.

As an aside, only Cruz, Cornyn, and Inhofe voted against confirming Kerry, and now everybody is pretending to be upset over Obama doing exactly what Kerry told them he’d help him do. That includes Sens. Corker and Risch. So obviously the fix was in regarding the Iran deal since before the Kerry nomination. All the huffing and puffing about stopping Obama from implementing the deal has been smoke and mirrors.

So do I believe Cruz? Do I trust him? Sorry, I can’t. Because of stunts like Lee’s. Lee is the only Senator to have a higher CR score than Cruz at 100%. And he falls for mush-brained crap like this sentencing reform disaster. And what is worse is how he tries to defend it.

But I’ll vote for Cruz any day. Even with all my mistrust in politicians that doesn’t drive me into the Trump or even Carson camp. Trump has a long history of making YUUUUUGE promises and then never delivers. His supporters mistake the fact that he’s loud and unfiltered for honesty.

Steve57 (a0050a) — 10/25/2015 @ 8:52 pm

as you see, delusion is not just limited to this country,

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/25/2015 @ 9:00 pm

When was the last time this happened? 1980?

2011 my wife and I were visiting friends in San Antonio and went to a concert on River Walk. It was two bands, the Gauchos against the Texians in a music battle. When the Texians began to play a bunch of people stood up in the front and held up La Raza signs and pelted the musicians with beer cans and cups of whatever while cursing profusely in Spanish. Admittedly that was at the outdoor theatre at River Walk not the Olympic Auditorium so I don’t know if it counts, Gustav. I’m sure the sentiments were the same.

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/25/2015 @ 9:01 pm

At first I liked Scott Walker and he dropped out. Then I liked Fiorina for a time but she’s going nowhere fast. I’m afraid if I state support for Cruz he’ll drop off too so I’ll shut up and help save the Republic. Since everyone I support goes to crap: Go Hillary!!

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/25/2015 @ 9:10 pm

Lee goes on to contend that his proposed legislation is grounded in the principle of forgiveness.

In the vein of George W Bush’s “compassionate conservatism.”

Why the hell does the squish-squish always tilt to the left and rarely, if ever, to the right? How come there are rarely or never cases of staunch liberals showing signs of being closeted conservatives?

It’s not just a joke to theorize that liberalism is a form of mental illness, but an illness that apparently has become so infectious even people like Mike Lee are coming down with it. An illness that is the reason even a leftist scrounge like Hillary is taken seriously, if not respected, by far too many Americans, and the guy now in the White House isn’t as unpopular as his predecessor was.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 9:15 pm

Since everyone I support goes to crap: Go Hillary!!

To really test your theory, you need to also become a stark raving mad liberal.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/25/2015 @ 9:18 pm

It happens all the time at the Olympic, Gustav. Probably any time there’s a crowd-favorite Mexican vs. any other ethnicity on the fight card. Go catch a bout or two and report back to us. Make sure you wear yer Gorton’s Fisherman duds.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 10/25/2015 @ 9:35 pm

Trust the Gorton’s Fisherman® duds… Enjoy the comfort of human-filth stained upholstered seats while you watch classic boxing matches as you bravely dodge 32 oz. paper cups filled with sudsy urine! Welcome to Aztlan, pinchi gringo!

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 10/25/2015 @ 9:42 pm

106. …In the months gearing up for the invasion of Iraq, I kept thinking why are we doing this? Saddam might be a monster, but since when is it our job to unseat monsters on the world stage? We don’t invade countries because we don’t like their leaders. That’s not what America does. At least not the America I love…

papertiger (c2d6da) — 10/25/2015 @ 2:41 pm

The America you love doesn’t enforce ceasefire treaties? You missed the fact that we were already at war with Iraq, and had been for years, since it is only possible to have a ceasefire with a country you are at war with. And the state of war exists until a ceasefire treaty is replaced with a peace treaty.

And this particular monster on the world stage that you were wondering about broke just about all of the conditions of the ceasefire. Including supporting terrorism. This support for terrorism went all the way back to the 1991 Gulf War when he tried to enlist dozens of terrorist groups into his war against us. The general idea being that the terrorist groups would strike us where he couldn’t. Such as within our borders.

The war was over before that effort bore fruit, but his support to terrorist groups only intensified after the war.

An honest reporter (there were very few in 2002, and they’ve grown fewer over the years) broke ranks with others in his profession (about as honest and respectable as the world’s oldest) when the Democrats later lied about the reasons cited in the act authorizing Bush to restart the Gulf War. They lied that the AUMF only authorized Bush to fight Saddam if he had supported AQ and then only if Iraq had helped them with the attacks on 9/11.

This was not true. Which some of you all may have picked up on when I called it a lie. The AUMF cited Saddam Hussein’s continuing and brazen support for terrorism in general as grounds for continuing the hostilities where we had left off. It did not limit itself to one terrorist organization and especially it was not limited to one specific act.

Most of the LHMFM carried the Democrats’ water on this. They were asserting that Bush had lied about Hussein’s support for Al Qaeda just as he lied about his WMDs. But the one reporter I mentioned earlier tried to set the record straight. First by noting that the AUMF was not so restrictive and gave Bush ample grounds for invading Iraq on the charge of supporting terrorism alone. He had written for either US News and World Report or Newsweek back in the 90s and had covered Baghdad in that capacity. He noted that Hussein’s government would frequently host what he described as veritable terrorist conventions

In fact, the Democrats even got the facts in their lie wrong. Iraq had provided support to AQ. A federal judge in Manhattan had reviewed the evidence the government was forced to provide during discovery, and ruled in favor of the families of the victims of 9/11 and awarded them compensation from frozen Iraq government funds because of Iraq’s complicity.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/court-rules-al-qaida-iraq-linked/

I believe the Bush administration which argued against compensating these victims of 9/11 from those funds ultimately prevailed because it wished to use that money for Iraq’s reconstruction.

Bush did a lot of things that made me uncomfortable. That was one of them. Another was his public case for going to war. His CIA director may have told him that it was a slam dunk that Iraq had WMDs, but I was not convinced and I was in a position at the time where I had some soljid knowledge on the subject. I was fine with resuming the hostilities because there were so many breaches of the ceasefire agreement that were beyond doubt, but Bush relied too heavily on the one thing that could be disputed. In fact, when we were in a professional environment where we discuss things I can’t discuss here or anywhere else these days we all drew the same conclusion. And that conclusion I can discuss; we were all unconvinced.

The problem is you simply can’t know if a country has WMDs without a strong inspections regime. And Iraq had kicked the inspectors out, after not letting them inspect key sites even when they had allowed them in.

But that alone, refusing to comply with the inspectors, was enough to put Saddam in sufficient breach of the ceasefire to warrant resumed to hostilities. Combined with his continued brazen support for terrorism and the fact that Iraq hadn’t ceased firing at US aircraft meant there was no meaningful ceasefire agreement. It was beyond doubt that resuming hostilities was the right thing to do on any level.

But, hey! If the America you love doesn’t enforce treaties concerning WMDs with state sponsors of terrorism, won’t lift a finger to enforce IAEA inspection regimes, and in fact acts as the law firm defending tyrants who break those treaties concerning their pursuit of WMDs and their noncooperation with IAEA inspectors against US and UN critics, Obama has given you the country you love back in spades.

Given what you said about the qualities of the country you love, you must be a huge Obama fan, papertiger.

Steve57 (a0050a) — 10/25/2015 @ 9:58 pm

And the corker bill, put us in another black box re iran, with much less margin for error. After operation desert fox, the disposition of said weapons was up on the air.

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/25/2015 @ 10:10 pm

Say they had significant stockpiled and Saddam had used them either on frontline troops or against civilians in a mass casualty aylttack as in Jordan in 2004, the left wiuld have found another reason to condemn.

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/25/2015 @ 10:14 pm

They lied that the AUMF only authorized Bush to fight Saddam if he had supported AQ and then only if Iraq had helped them with the attacks on 9/11.

That’s ridiculous. At no point did Bush or anyone in his administration claim or imply that Hussein was responsible for those particular attacks. The whole point of Bush’s declaration on the night of 11-Sep-2001 was that we were at war not just with the specific people who’d attacked us that day, or even with their specific organization, but with the whole terror network of which they were part. And that network definitely included Saddam Hussein.

Bush never accused Hussein of involvement in those attacks. Right after they happened he wondered whether Hussein might have been involved, and asked the intelligence services to look into the possibility — he’d have been stupid and reckless not to wonder that. But it turned out that he wasn’t directly involved, though it’s likely that AQ briefed him on its plans, if only to keep him from accidentally bollixing them up.

Milhouse (af0c3c) — 10/25/2015 @ 10:42 pm

And the corker bill, put us in another black box re iran, with much less margin for error.

Again with this. The Corker bill did not put us in any box. It was a failed attempt to stop 0bama from waiving the sanctions on Iran. A failed attempt is better than no attempt at all. It certainly didn’t help him do anything. It didn’t give him any powers he didn’t already have. It slightly restricted his powers, though in the end not enough.

Milhouse (af0c3c) — 10/25/2015 @ 10:47 pm

209.

They lied that the AUMF only authorized Bush to fight Saddam if he had supported AQ and then only if Iraq had helped them with the attacks on 9/11.

That’s ridiculous. At no point did Bush or anyone in his administration claim or imply that Hussein was responsible for those particular attacks. The whole point of Bush’s declaration on the night of 11-Sep-2001 was that we were at war not just with the specific people who’d attacked us that day, or even with their specific organization, but with the whole terror network of which they were part. And that network definitely included Saddam Hussein.

Bush never accused Hussein of involvement in those attacks. Right after they happened he wondered whether Hussein might have been involved, and asked the intelligence services to look into the possibility — he’d have been stupid and reckless not to wonder that. But it turned out that he wasn’t directly involved, though it’s likely that AQ briefed him on its plans, if only to keep him from accidentally bollixing them up.

Milhouse (af0c3c) — 10/25/2015 @ 10:42 pm
blockquote
What is wrong with your reading comprehension. That is one of the lies the Democrats manufactured to claim Bush lied this country into war. That he had cooked the intel on Iraq’s ties to AQ, and Iraq’s aid to AQ to bring off the 9/11 attacks.

The Senate Intelligence Committee issued a partisan hit job posing as an intelligence committee report (they excluded Republican staffers when they wrote it) on 5 June 2008. Based on that report the Democrats made the claim.

The Chairman, John D. Rockefeller IV, made these statements to the press when the committee released that report:

“Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses” and that “top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.”

As partisan as the report was, it didn’t substantiate those charges. But that didn’t stop the democrats from using those lies.

Those are the facts.

Steve57 (a0050a) — 10/25/2015 @ 11:19 pm

I won’t be voting in Federal elections again. I’ll cast my pearls to local swine from now on.

Wyowanderer (10a759) — 10/26/2015 @ 6:12 am

One of the few benefits of living in Mexifornia is that my vote for president will be overwhelmed by
the vote for whomever the Democrats nominate. Hillary or Sanders etc. Accordingly, I can refuse to vote for that a##hole Trump with a clear conscience.

Bar Sinister (c62a89) — 10/26/2015 @ 7:15 am

We’re at 12/70/18 after 787 votes. I predicated 4/90/6. I slightly underestimated the size of the margins but I think my prediction was pretty spot on.

So far I have 95 — almost 100! — people reading this blog who say they love Trump. Only 12% of the total, but still.

Patterico (86c8ed) — 10/26/2015 @ 7:43 am

Doesn’t anyone know that the former Olympic Auditorium has been a church for 10 years?

G Green (381030) — 10/26/2015 @ 7:58 am

Of course, if you hate Latinos, that probably doesn’t matter much.

G Green (381030) — 10/26/2015 @ 7:59 am

I wonder if the story of Mexican boxing fans throwing plastic cups full of piss isn’t one of two things:

A. A story told by Bukowski, and thus taken with a grain of salt.
B. A story like that told by the Sun about Liverpool fans. That is, we know those people and we don’t like them, so of course we would uncritically believe that they would pickpocket and piss on the first responders as they attempted to revive the dead and dying at Hillsborough.

G Green (381030) — 10/26/2015 @ 8:17 am

Here’s a hypthetical. If the 911 attack on the WTC had never happened, would Bush have ordered the toppling of Saddam?

Simple math.

Hell to the no.

If saying so makes me a Democrat in Steve’s eyes, I’ll just have to bare that cross.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 10/26/2015 @ 8:24 am

215.Doesn’t anyone know that the former Olympic Auditorium has been a church for 10 years?

So who cares?

216.Of course, if you hate Latinos, that probably doesn’t matter much.

Doesn’t matter if you hate them or love them, who cares

217.I wonder if the story of Mexican boxing fans throwing plastic cups full of piss isn’t one of two things:

I wonder if it’s true. Sadly, if the La Raza demonstrations I’ve witnessed are any indication the stories are most likely true….and under reported. BTW, do Latinos come from the nation of Latinia like the Hispanics hail from Hispania?

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/26/2015 @ 8:35 am

Doesn’t anyone know that the former Olympic Auditorium has been a church for 10 years?

I’m assuming the description of sporting events taking place there predate the period of time it was converted to what I believe is a Korean Christian congregation.

As for hating Latinos, I admit to strongly disliking leftwing Latinos, and leftwing Anglos/whites, and leftwing Christians, and leftwing atheistis, and leftwing Jews, and leftwing gentiles, and leftwing women, and leftwing men, and leftwing gays, and leftwing straights.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/26/2015 @ 8:40 am

Sadly, if the La Raza demonstrations I’ve witnessed are any indication the stories are most likely true….and under reported.

I willing to bet that the more likely explanation is that you’re a liar.

G Green (381030) — 10/26/2015 @ 9:00 am

I’m assuming the description of sporting events taking place there predate the period of time it was converted to what I believe is a Korean Christian congregation.

Nobody above referencing the Olympic has grasped this distinction. I’m willing to be they’re either telling stories at third or fourth hand or they’re liars.

G Green (381030) — 10/26/2015 @ 9:02 am

Say G Green.

What Olympic stadium are you talking about? Were you talking about Mexico City?

papertiger (c2d6da) — 10/26/2015 @ 10:43 am

So far I have 95 — almost 100! — people reading this blog who say they love Trump. Only 12% of the total, but still.

Patterico (86c8ed) — 10/26/2015 @ 7:43 am

And 681 out of 837, who will vote for him.

That’s a better percentage then Obama got with blacks.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 10/26/2015 @ 10:52 am

I willing to bet that the more likely explanation is that you’re a liar.

Excuse me you little twerp. Who are you to call me a liar? And why on earth would I lie? I have no dog in the fight. Do you? Perhaps it’s you who are the liar and projecting? Only a crazy leftist would call someone they don’t know on a blog they are a guest on a liar. You must be a Hillary! supporter? Or just a nasty, hateful, vulgar man?

Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/26/2015 @ 11:27 am

What is wrong with your reading comprehension. That is one of the lies the Democrats manufactured to claim Bush lied this country into war.

Nothing’s wrong with my reading comprehension. It is and was a ridiculous lie.

Milhouse (e5ca2a) — 10/26/2015 @ 4:00 pm

top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.

The administration truthfully linked Iraq and al Qaeda as two parts of a single threat. Nobody in the administration ever insinuated, indicated, hinted, signed, or mimed that Iraq played a direct role in the 9/11 attacks.

Milhouse (e5ca2a) — 10/26/2015 @ 4:07 pm

Here’s a hypthetical. If the 911 attack on the WTC had never happened, would Bush have ordered the toppling of Saddam?

Simple math.

Hell to the no.

Let’s suppose not. What exactly is your point? What do you imagine this demonstrates?

Milhouse (e5ca2a) — 10/26/2015 @ 4:13 pm

On the other hand, that’s an interesting hypothetical. Had the 11-Sep-2001 attacks been foiled, and no similar attack was successful, would we ever have got the national consensus to go to war against the international terrorist network in which Saddam Hussein was a key player? Perhaps not. But even in that scenario, eventually we would have had no choice but to take Hussein out, for almost all the reasons that we ended up doing so. The sanctions were still a failure, he was not being contained, his weapons program was progressing at a rate we could not determine, and he was continuing to sponsor terrorism. Ironically if we had somehow managed to get some intelligence on the status of his weapons program we’d probably have increased our estimate of the danger, because all the indications are that he and all his generals believed they had a stockpile of ready-to-use WMDs, and it was more of a surprise to them than to us that they didn’t.

Milhouse (e5ca2a) — 10/26/2015 @ 4:23 pm

I understand there are two views about HP and Fiorina, or three if we include Jerry Sonnenfield. I happen to side with this one.

Walter Hewlett’s plan would have sacked 3 out of every 5 HP employees and let Compaq go bust. But Walter and his family would have not risked their inheritances, so that’s good for them.

It isn’t even remotely moral to suggest Hewlett was anything but an entitled brat grown to ~~man~~adulthood.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/26/2015 @ 6:44 pm

I don’t believe in the end of the world. 4 years of Hillary would certainly prime the pump for 12 or 16 years of Republican presidents.

If 8 years of Obama can’t do that, nothing will.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/26/2015 @ 6:46 pm

And 16 years of GOP Presidents won’t do a damn thing once the Supreme Court has 8 communists on it.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/26/2015 @ 6:47 pm

Papertiger @ 224: The key you need to look at is the large percentage who say they will never, ever vote for Trump. It’s that number, which will carry on into the General, that eliminates Trump from contention for Commander in Chief of the US Military. A very large segment of the Republican base, and I suggest a Venn of Conservatives and those who won’t vote Trump will be almost as a no-Trump subset of Conservatives, will never vote for the DEMOCRAT DONALD TRUMP.

It’s the Romney failure, only amplified. We were telling you no to Romney and we won’t vote for Romney. Now, even more of us are telling you we won’t vote for the Democrat Donald Trump. It’s not going to happen.

Those willing to vote for a Democrat will vote for the (D) Democrat. They won’t vote for the (R) Democrat. Trump has zero avenues to the Presidency. Get over it, and move on to another candidate. And if you’re going to stick with Democrats, go to the list with (D).

John Hitchcock (3faba0) — 10/26/2015 @ 7:07 pm

Hey, G Green. Listen up real close, you piece of human waste.

Hoagie and I are very much at odds over Trump, but we come from the same group of people: those who value Truth, Honor, Integrity more than any Democrat in power and more than half the Republicans (to give a Conservative estimate). You would have better luck convincing people Obama is a real Christian than convincing anyone that Hoagie is a liar.

As a Leftist, I suggest you study aphrael’s behavior. He’s as wrong as you, but at least he debates with integrity and honor.

John Hitchcock (3faba0) — 10/26/2015 @ 7:13 pm

oh please, we were told mccain was the answer, then he took a dive, the same with Romney, playing by marquis of queensbury rules, while they sliced him up like ‘the black knight’ in the general, and he shows he has learned nothing by commisserating with David Axelrod,

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/26/2015 @ 7:13 pm

Oh, and G Green, I’m part Latino. And Papertiger lied about what I said based on the fact I’m part Latino. I’m also part indian (feather) – another victim group. I’m also part Irish – another group that was enslaved and otherwise victimized in the US. My grandson is half black. My fiancee is Asian – the brand of Asian all the other Asians love to hate.

You see, we Conservatives have a 300+ year history of judging people based on the content of their character, while you Leftists have a 500+ year history of judging people based on the color of their skin. And that’s a fact.

John Hitchcock (3faba0) — 10/26/2015 @ 7:19 pm

Based on Patterico’s unscientific poll, 18 percent of respondents said absolutely no to Trump. That consists of mainly the Republican base. If just 6 percent of the Republican base refuses to vote for the Democrat Trump in the General, Trump loses by a landslide of the electorate.

Instead of hanging on to the Democrat Trump and lambasting those of us who refuse to vote for the Democrat Trump, why don’t you folk remember our warnings re Romney and move on to another candidate? That would be the wise thing.

But I expect you’ll “keep repeating the same thing over and over, expecting different results” and hang onto Trump while lambasting those of us who have already warned you we will not vote for him. And your groupthink will not work on us. Trump will not be President. You have a choice. Either Hillary or some other not-Trump. But it won’t be Trump, no matter what you decide.

John Hitchcock (3faba0) — 10/26/2015 @ 7:27 pm

Those willing to vote for a Democrat will vote for the (D) Democrat.

Not necessarily. In NYC we had 12 years of a Democrat mayor with an R after his name. My feeling is if that I must have a D mayor, he should at least be honest about it. In 2009 Bill Thompson became the first Democrat I voted for in 25 years, since he had a decent chance of defeating Bloomberg, and for a Democrat he’s not that bad.

Milhouse (e5ca2a) — 10/26/2015 @ 7:33 pm

wrong side of the lense, how many of the top men, who thought mccain was the bee’s knees have denounced trump, in ways they would never do to Obama, take Joyner’s site, I haven’t been in ages, but their contempt for anyone to the left of John Huntsman is pronounced,

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/26/2015 @ 7:36 pm

Bar Sinister @ 213:

My vote will be cast in Ohio. I won’t vote for the (D) or Democrat Trump. I guarantee I’m not the only Buckeye who will refuse to vote for either of the two. While your refusal to vote for the trash known as Trump will have zero effect, mine will have an impact. And the refusals like mine can have an effect down-ticket, as well. There will be many who will either vote 3rd party or refuse to vote top-line, but there will also be many who just stay home. In Bellwether Ohio, that means a whole heck of a lot. In California, not so much.

I guarantee Trump is a drift sock on the Republican election hopes in 2016. Much more amplified in Republican areas and Bellwether areas, but a drift sock in all precincts, nonetheless.

John Hitchcock (3faba0) — 10/26/2015 @ 7:45 pm

Here’s another clue why Trump will never be President, and why all Trump supporters should rethink their position:

The same neo-nazis from Stormfront who supported Laup Nor are supporting Trump.

John Hitchcock (3faba0) — 10/26/2015 @ 7:51 pm

I posted this in another dead thread,

Not sure whether Trump being a real Repub is even relevant at this point. McCain, his girlfriend Lyndset and Eric Cantor are all Repubs and where did that get us. His previous donations are typical for a business man. They give to everybody but more to the people in power, He admits as much.
If he actually builds a wall and stems the flow of illegals of all kinds I’m all for it.
I say this as one of Pat’s LIVs who is so dumb he often shops at Amazon via this site’s widget.
Gazzer (3add11) — 10/26/2015 @ 1:47 pm

Gazzer (3add11) — 10/26/2015 @ 7:55 pm

Nobody above referencing the Olympic has grasped this distinction. I’m willing to be they’re either telling stories at third or fourth hand or they’re liars.

It’s actually that such posters here at patterico.com likely voted with their feet and the moving van, lost track of what the Olympic Auditorium in downtown LA had become, and got the hell out of Los Angeles, which has been a trend eating away at the city for most of the 20th century.

I’ve said in the past that if a nation, including its cities, veers to the left and follows the typical pattern where liberalism takes a people and a place, such a nation’s only saving grace will be its demographics. IOW, if a bunch of people have to be nonsensical liberals and insist on favoring nonsensical liberal politicians and nonsensical liberal policies, they’ll manage to keep their community or society in somewhat decent shape if most of them are talented, resourceful, bright and stable. But most humans are average to mediocre and don’t fit into that rarefied category.

Look to the pathetic example of Argentina — one of South America’s most predominantly Euro-racial nations — which had an election yesterday. In spite of that country’s loony leftist president running her homeland into the ground for several years (just as her liberal predecessors have done for most of the 20th century), enough voters sided with her leftwing successor to make the election a close one, no better for Argentina’s conservatives than a runoff between their candidate and the leftists.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/26/2015 @ 8:03 pm

you want a substantive objection,

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/10/26/trump-hillary-did-okay-at-very-partisan-benghazi-hearing/

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/26/2015 @ 8:03 pm

There will be many who will either vote 3rd party or refuse to vote top-line, but there will also be many who just stay home

Even without voters like you, there will be plenty of Americans similar to the voters of Argentina, who came out in large enough numbers yesterday to allow the successor to their version of Hillary/Barack end up in a runoff.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/26/2015 @ 8:17 pm

Runoff? You think there could be a runoff in the US public voting? How cute. I’m patting you on your head.

John Hitchcock (3faba0) — 10/26/2015 @ 8:18 pm

Scioli is actually a Menem protege, the Blair of the Peronist, whereas Macri is doctrinally more right,

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/26/2015 @ 8:19 pm

well we call it ‘sanctuary’ I mean recount,

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/26/2015 @ 8:20 pm

From Narciso’s link
Trump told Hewitt he had only heard part of Clinton’s opening statement because he had rushed off to a business meeting, but what he saw did not impress him.

Not the first time he’s put (unspecified) business meetings before being a candidate. I infer from it that even he does not really think he will reach the WH. But it does raise the question of how he would handle Trump Inc. if he is elected.

kishnevi (31ba4e) — 10/26/2015 @ 8:21 pm

You think there could be a runoff in the US public voting?

No, just that a woman will be the next occupant of the White House. And, by the way, I’m not referring to Carly Fiorina.

Don’t cry for us, Argentina.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/26/2015 @ 8:22 pm

There is no run-off in US Presidential elections. If the public votes enough for a 3rd party, it goes to electors. And there are enough in those electors who will throw Trump by the way-side that he cannot win. Also, in that situation, someone who did not run could win. But there hasn’t been a situation like that since basically the Amendment that removed the VP from the Prez vote. There will be no run-off. I guarantee that.

John Hitchcock (3faba0) — 10/26/2015 @ 8:23 pm

well it was a stomach churning, collection of platitudes, evasions, and outright lies, he probably didn’t get to Jordan’s colloquoy

narciso (ee1f88) — 10/26/2015 @ 8:27 pm

Of the other 5 potential nominees (Bush, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina, Rubio (in alphabetical order)) is there anyone that could cause 18% of Pat’s readers top stay home or vote for Hillary?

Maybe Bush. Maybe not. I doubt any of the rest would have that much opposition once they were nominated.

How about the same poll with Bush instead of Trump?

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/26/2015 @ 8:57 pm

he had rushed off to a business meeting

Trump has underlings do everything. I picture him as Governor William J LePetomaine. “Work, work, work…”

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/26/2015 @ 9:00 pm

The stories of the piss cup Olympic are true (happened quite often at the Forum, too). As for hating Mexicans, half my family are Americans of Mexican descent. As is my lovely wife of 40 years as of this coming January.

Pinchi Green… go!

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 10/26/2015 @ 9:01 pm

John H, you misread something and now you are hammering your misreading into the ground.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/26/2015 @ 9:01 pm

Republicans are gutless scum. Stand up and fight. Quit giving my country away. And quit putting up dopes and liars.
Juanny Mac, I am obama care Mittens, and having another useless boosh in the way is no way to save a country.
Lock and Load fellow Americans.
Cruz/West
and eff the rest.

mg (31009b) — 10/26/2015 @ 9:11 pm

Kevin M. Prove it.

John Hitchcock (3faba0) — 10/26/2015 @ 9:11 pm

MG @ 257:
Fuckin’a
Oorah!
Shit yeah!

John Hitchcock (3faba0) — 10/26/2015 @ 9:13 pm

I think Bush would cause way more people to stay home than The Donald.

Gazzer (3add11) — 10/26/2015 @ 9:14 pm

Gazzer, I have no idea of the accuracy of your prognostication, but this I can say.
Bush and Trump have a 1:1 correlation with my vote.
And that is Hell to the No.

John Hitchcock (3faba0) — 10/26/2015 @ 9:17 pm

Watch your proud republicans raise the debt ceiling so they can continue to spend your money ever so foolishly.
What a bunch of hacks.
Pathetic.

mg (31009b) — 10/26/2015 @ 9:20 pm

JH respectfully I would vote for Trump but not Bush.

Gazzer (3add11) — 10/26/2015 @ 9:22 pm

Booosh lacks the skills to put gas in his car. But hey – lets have a big love making party with a billion crimaleins.

mg (31009b) — 10/26/2015 @ 9:30 pm

Gazzer, I’ve read your reasoned statements for quite some time. I respect you. You are very clearly far to the Left of me. In 1986, while I was yet 20, I declared Reagan to the Left of me, so you aren’t necessarily a raving lunatic. Just thought I’d say that, because I don’t have a proper social filter.

John Hitchcock (3faba0) — 10/26/2015 @ 9:33 pm

You are honest, and that is a good thing. However me being far to the left of you prolly says a lot more about you than it does me. Again, said with respect. I’m almost a single issue guy in that I am fiercely against illegal immigration so you see why Trump might resonate.

Gazzer (3add11) — 10/26/2015 @ 9:50 pm

Mutual respect, Gazzer, and mutual agreement. Your position on ILLEGAL immigration matches mine. I’m a Cruz man. My fiancee is not a US citizen and is not living in the US yet. Trump’s position on practically everything else is not just wrong but hella wrong. And Trump’s position in 2012 on illegals is a far cry from his position now. Expediency, popularism. Trump is two things, maybe three. He’s a Democrat, and he’s a business failure. He’s also a deceitful cynic, selecting the one thing that will galvanize a large minority of citizens: immigrants. Note that is not illegal immigrants, but immigrants. And that’s why the Laup Nor Nazis love him.

I can be a single-issue voter on multiple issues, which is a logical impossibility, but politically correct…

If you are accepting of abortion, I won’t vote for you. Ever.
If you love sanctuary cities, or for amnesty, I won’t vote for you. Ever.
If you are what I deem anti-Semite, I won’t vote for you. Ever.
If you are anti-Christian, I won’t vote for you. Ever.
If you are anti-#2A, I won’t vote for you. Ever.

So, yes, I feel for you on the illegal immigrant front. But there is at least one other candidate that fills that need. And Trump fails multiple tests of mine. Critical fail points.

John Hitchcock (3faba0) — 10/26/2015 @ 10:10 pm

The fact of the matter is I am currently in the Asian country where my fiancee resides. And she is currently getting her multiple birth certificate copies and her multiple CENOMAR copies, so I can get my K-1 packet together. That’s a huge hint for people who know or are willing to research.

John Hitchcock (3faba0) — 10/26/2015 @ 10:13 pm

I wholeheartedly agree with you on all those principles. At this moment I am having trouble with the “ever” part. Because if Hillary! wins it will be all over and then we won’t be able to fight for all those things. I was instrumental in ridding our small town of illegals after the Town Marshall showed me a rape tree in the wash. It also was instrumental in me getting a CCW after being threatened by gangs because of my position. I think we might be closer ideologically than you think. We just differ on the way forward to get out of this mess. And that is OK.

Gazzer (3add11) — 10/26/2015 @ 10:26 pm

I think Bush would cause way more people to stay home than The Donald.

Lots of caught-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place scenarios for 2016, due in part to the idiotically liberal nature of plenty of people throughout the US (and elsewhere).

I’d have full confidence in Ted Cruz next year in terms of his ideology and gumption, but I’m a rightist and too many Americans are squishes or liberal.

I admire Ben Carson and should he represent the Republican Party next year, I’d hope he have the tenacity, aggressiveness and cunning to beat the crud from the left (probably trashy Hillary). But I’m worried those traits might eventually elude him when things reach a crescendo.

Donald Trump is a squishy egomaniac, but he may at least understand the concept of “demographics is destiny.” Unfortunately, such a realization may be too late at this juncture in the US’s history, meaning he, at best, would be a case of closing the proverbial barn door after the proverbial horse has escaped, and being unreliable on a host of other matters.

Nonetheless, all these scenarios are less tragic than one where Obama’s successor is a leftist like he his—and any Democrat candidate will be exactly that (Jim Webb just a tiny bit less so).

Mark (f713e4) — 10/26/2015 @ 10:29 pm

He’s also a deceitful cynic, selecting the one thing that will galvanize a large minority of citizens: immigrants. Note that is not illegal immigrants, but immigrants.

That reeks of politically correct, do-gooder rhetoric, assuming you’re not able to cite text or verbal commentary from him that affirms your point.

I recall his rather resentful reactions towards so-called “Japan Inc.” a few decades ago, and his similarly nationalistic sentiments towards the PRC today, so that combined with his on-target disgust about outrageous crimes involving the “undocumented,” together with his full awareness of how truly unhinged illegal immigration has become in Obama’s America, is why I don’t think he’s harping on immigration for purely cynical, manipulative reasons. IOW, I think he’s truly pissed off about the whole issue, the whole situation.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/26/2015 @ 10:36 pm

So, perhaps my firm belief in the End Times Prophecy might be the final touch on our difference. If you understand the whole impact of End Times Prophecy, whether you agree or no, you will understand my stance better, I think.

John Hitchcock (3faba0) — 10/26/2015 @ 10:40 pm

Mark, try if you can to remember his bombastic hatred of Mitt Romney’s “self-deportation” being the embodiment of evil in Trump’s mind back in 12. And I used the term “bombastic” intentionally.

John Hitchcock (3faba0) — 10/26/2015 @ 10:43 pm

John, your characterization of Trump made him sound like an avowed nativist, or a person against immigrants, legal or otherwise, period. But his comments about Romney are, if anything, loaded with squish-squish regarding the topic of immigration. So I’ll grant you that does have a whiff of cynicism, based on his tenor today, but it’s not in the direction of a hard-hearted anti-immigrant nativist. Therefore, if your concerned about his luring in neo-Nazis, it should be how bitterly disappointed they’ll be if he does end up in the Oval Office.

Mark (f713e4) — 10/26/2015 @ 11:13 pm

4:50 am eastern time:

I love Trump. I would enthusiastically vote for him. 114 12%
I don’t care for Trump, but he’s better than Hillary. I’d vote for him over her. 649 69%
I will never, under any circumstances, vote for Donald Trump. 180 19%

I don’t like Trump. I think he’s an idiot…but I will crawl over broken glass to vote against Hillary Clinton. I’d even vote for Jeb Bush in that case…though I will do my best to work against EITHER Trump or Bush getting the nomination of the GOP.

Rich Vail (015de0) — 10/27/2015 @ 1:54 am

I’m somewhere in between 2 and 3 (definitely vote for him in a contest with Hillary or never vote for him no matter what) It may depend on outside circumstances. I would try to figure out exacrly hat he would do. I am undecided between findinbg a third party and Trump. It’s more how do I want to align myself than anything else.

Sammy Finkelman (3a0a59) — 10/27/2015 @ 8:30 pm

81% of Patterico readers would vote for Trump – and that’s the Roman Triumph we need to overcome the margin of fraud.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 10/28/2015 @ 11:16 am

10/25/2015

Would You Vote for Trump? Reader Poll!

278 Responses to “Would You Vote for Trump? Reader Poll!”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out