Patterico's Pontifications

4/3/2016

Sniveling Coward: “Right Now I’m Catering to the Republicans”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:45 am



Do you feel catered to, Republicans?

Donald Trump wants voters to know his message to the disaffected isn’t meant for Republicans alone.

The party’s presidential front-runner told supporters Saturday that he’s out to bring independents and Democrats behind his cause even though “right now I’m catering to the Republicans.”

This right now is catering to Republicans. Just so you understand.

By the way, he says he is going to eliminate the $19 trillion national debt in eight years.

The Founders worried about democracy because they knew there are some people dumb enough to fall for stuff like this.

285 Responses to “Sniveling Coward: “Right Now I’m Catering to the Republicans””

  1. He says “the Republicans” almost like he’s talking about somebody else.

    Patterico (676dac)

  2. My God, but Drudge in banging the drum hard for Trump today.

    Lead story/stock photo about Ryan waiting for his call to steal nomination
    Wisconsin: Politics impossible to predict ahead of Tuesday’s primary…
    Blue collar voters: Trade killing us… ROGER STONE: Cruz And Wall St. Connection…
    ROGER STONE: Cruz And Wall St. Connection…
    VIDEO: Watch Cruz coach his family through a campaign ad shoot…
    PALIN: Politicians ‘seducing immigrants with teddy bears, soccer balls’…
    TRUMP: ‘THEY WANT TO KNOCK OUT THE OUTSIDER. THEY WANT TO KEEP THEIR LITTLE PARTY GOING’…
    On campuses across country, students standing up for Trump…
    NYU students fear for safety and grades for backing…
    VIDEO: How long are lines to see Trump?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  3. the important thing is he keeps cheesy establishment harvardtrash like teddy pie out of the white house

    he’d only give us four more years of failure management

    what we’re doing now is simply unsustainable

    something has to change – change drastically!

    and the only real wild card in america right now is Mr. Trump

    happyfeet (831175)

  4. Too much smoke, too many dopes.
    The smell of “Trump” surrounds us.

    nk (9faaca)

  5. He’s setting to run as an independent, at which point all his noises about GOP values, guns, abortion, taxes, etc, will go right out the window and he’ll be Dick Gephardt without the class.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  6. Anyone who thinks Cruz is establishment is on par with those who think blacks who work for a living aren’t really black people.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  7. that’s sort of a weird stretch you’re reaching for there Mr. M

    happyfeet (831175)

  8. Anybody who thinks Trump is a Republican, thinks Hillary is one too.

    nk (9faaca)

  9. Did he mean to say “cratering”?

    nk (9faaca)

  10. that’s sort of a weird stretch you’re reaching for there Mr. M

    No, saying Cruz, who called out the entire US Senate (and publicly called the lying majority leader a liar), is “establishment” is the stretch.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  11. But, heck, I guess Trump is one of them Mavericks we keep hearing about. Which one is he? Not Bret or Bart of Beau. How about Boob Maverick? For at least two reasons.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  12. *or Beau

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  13. Anyone who thinks the Lying Leftist Democrat Donald Trump is anything remotely resembling a Republican is a dumb arse who deserves the same thing Trump gave all his creditors — four different times — when they trusted his word. The problem with that, is you dumb fscks are foisting an evil schist on those of us who know he is the destruction of the US.

    John Hitchcock (d7429a)

  14. No, saying Cruz, who called out the entire US Senate (and publicly called the lying majority leader a liar), is “establishment” is the stretch.

    i do not have your believes

    this was all just phony harvardtrash self-marketing and positioning

    Ted knew all the senators hated him so he tried to make a virtue of it

    but that doesn’t mean he’s not deeply invested in his harvardtrash goldy sacky sensibilities

    happyfeet (831175)

  15. We argue: “Look, Trump is not a Republican or a conservative. He’s using them for his own interests and then he’ll toss them away when no longer needed. It’s all about him.”

    His supporter respond: “Exactly. That’s why we like him. Tell us more.”

    All of this talk about his lack of principles, of any coherent ideology is, for his supporters a plus not a minus. Since for them those principles have led to the near destruction of the country.

    There is simply no argument, no sets of facts, no statement from him – nothing – that will move them.

    SteveMG (80983b)

  16. Good Lord. Mr. Feet, what specific policy decisions will Trump make that you will like?

    Sounds like you just want things to burn. If so, say so.

    Also, please go on record: what is a policy statement Trump could utter that would make you stop your silly ass cheerleading for a bullying lying part of the rich class? Go on record. Because I don’t think you can.

    Besides, it won’t matter. All you do is run your mouth. You don’t vote.

    Simon Jester (76d272)

  17. The ultimate truth of Trump is that he’s all about nothing but Trump.

    The ultimate truth of Trumpkins (unless and until they repent) is that they are all about nothing but Trump.

    This isn’t about policy — not on immigration, not on trade, not on anything. This is about the Superlative Cult of Donald J. Trump, and the only metric that matters is his ratings. Er, votes. Whatever.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  18. @ KevinM (#2), who wrote, accurately, “My God, but Drudge in banging the drum hard for Trump today,” with examples:

    I read in the National Enquirer that Trump has promised Drudge a key new cabinet post — the position of “Minister of State Information and Seditious Libel” for the new administration.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  19. i do not have your believes

    But Trump is authentic?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  20. Good Lord. Mr. Feet, what specific policy decisions will Trump make that you will like?

    President Trump is a catalyst

    he’ll make Republicans reflect on how they got so out of touch

    they’ll have to decide where to oppose him and where to support him

    and he’ll make this challenging for them

    challenging and difficult

    but ultimately rewarding

    happyfeet (831175)

  21. See what I mean? Essentially lazy.

    Simon Jester (76d272)

  22. Trump could come out against football, barbecue and sex of any kind and his supporters would declare they always been against these things. They are the people Ingsoc sought for the outer party. In short, fools.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  23. So refreshing watching Mark Steyn and Nigel Farange on my recording of the CSpan Munk Debates fight the good fight against the elitist do-gooders with their head-in-the-clouds (or much darker locations) attitudes and appalling lack of both common sense and honesty

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  24. I dreamt last night that in a contested convention, after three ballots, Cruz got the nomination, whereupon someone handed him an enormous bouquet of roses and affixed a tiara to his head. Trump stood to the side, tears streaking through his orange spray-tan and makeup, trying to smile as his shoulders heaved in great sobs. John Kasich got Miss Congeniality because someone had to, and it was the only way to shut him up.

    It was a pleasant dream, except for the swimsuit competition.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  25. Palin could have done the same thing originally (without all the corrupt establishment money you say you abhor). But you covered yourself with vulgar glory on that one.

    You don’t really believe in anything.

    Such a hypocrite.

    Simon Jester (76d272)

  26. and he’ll make this challenging for them

    challenging and difficult

    but ultimately rewarding

    Now he’s an oracle. Thank God he’s a free oracle.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  27. I know where to oppose the Lying Leftist Democrat Donald Trump: everywhere and on everything.

    I know where to support the Lying Leftist Democrat Donald Trump: in his Federal prison cell with mandatory 23 hours solitary confinement every day.

    John Hitchcock (d7429a)

  28. Beldar, if you left out capital letters and wrote like e.e. cummings on acid, you would have the style down.

    Simon Jester (76d272)

  29. you so meanspirited you should be more kind to me

    cause of i have reasons for my believes and one of them is

    i think 2016 is a very very low stakes election

    big deal so the sleazy corrupt freedom-hating supreme court gets a lil sleazier

    beyond that this sad lil country just doesn’t have a lot going on except for continuing on its merry path of humiliation decline and fail

    so this is a good time to shake up the sad trashy ruling class

    to shake it up and shake it off like the swiftest of taylors

    and the haters gonna hate hate hate and et cetera

    but that’s ok

    happyfeet (831175)

  30. The well-informed Ed from SFV mentioned this in comments on another post, but it’s worth repeating here: Ted Cruz wins first 6 Colorado delegates, Donald Trump shut out. Cruz looks well positioned to pick up even more Colorado delegates out of the 28 who will be selected during the next week.

    If Cruz does as well in Wisconsin as he seems positioned to do, next week could be another very stressful week for the Trump campaign. He does not hold up well under pressure.

    I think it was Mark Halperin who was asking him, on the superb Showtime mini-series The Circus, about whether Trump was prepared for the pressure he’d be under in a contested convention. Trump’s answer, IIRC, was that he’s fully prepared because he’s won “many club championships.”

    The ghost of Dwight David Eisenhower weeps.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  31. Thanks, Simon (#28)!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  32. You just don’t have an answer. And you are helping HRC to win. You can read polls, too.

    I have seen you write thoughtfully and intelligently. Plus some people I know think highly of you.

    But here? You just dump turds in Patterico’s punch bowl and giggle.

    There are tTump supporters here who try to define their position. You won’t.

    It’s all just an opportunity for trolling to you. Nothing more.

    Sad.

    Simon Jester (76d272)

  33. Well, hf, if there is nothing at stake, just STFU and watch TV or something while the rest of us who know better take care of business.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  34. Not Beldar, of course. But I would love seeing posts by Happydar or Beldfeet.

    Simon Jester (76d272)

  35. i have to go to the store Mr. Jester but i think i’ll go to the bodega not mariano’s cause of the bodega isn’t union and yeah it probably costs a little more but i did notice the other day that a 2-liter of diet coke is actually a little less there than at cvs

    happyfeet (831175)

  36. Beldar, this is probably unreported, mostly because reporters don’t get it, but the political infighting of local party committees — where the actual delegates are chosen — is awesomely important. Trump, who apparently gets all his information from Hawaii Five-0 episodes television, is way late to that party and a lot of the delegates he thinks he has, or expects to be getting, are going to be voting for Cruz. Especially when the Convention passes the rule changes that free votes on the first ballot.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  37. no Mr. M is not good to just let everything suppurate when i can offer the nation the healing salve of my wisdoms what i learned mostly from mama pikachu and daddy pikachu but also from many readings i have done

    i read, much of the night

    and go south in the winter except not this winter cause it wasn’t very intensively wintry

    i did go to LA for a bit

    we sat outside and ate salad, and for a time we were happy

    happyfeet (831175)

  38. I want to thank Kevin and Beldar and a lot of others for their insights. This is a scary time, and I don’t trust the media very much. So I learn a lot from folks here, even when I get irritable with trolling.

    At breakfast this morning, my sons and I (there are starting to be political fights at school) discussed issues with different people. Why do they differ? The hard part, as my late father pointed out, is trying to understand other points of view.

    I certainly understand being angry at the system. But Trump?

    Remember that he could act in a straightforward and thoughtful fashion. But he acts very much like (and I love the essay where I saw this recently) a freshman student BSing on an assignment without any reading or preparation.

    I don’t think, given his bizarre and childish antics, there is any way he can win against HRC, who is the worst D candidate in many years.

    So Trump supporters have to own the nonsense Trump spouts. That will be difficult for them.

    Simon Jester (76d272)

  39. @ Kevin M (#36): Yep, Trump again finds that being a blowhard is no substitute for being knowledgeable and organized. May it sink his campaign.

    I’m not sure, though, how the RNC could free up delegates on the first ballot. That would require many delegates (including Texas’) to violate state law — unless their respective states’ GOP executive committees (probably with ratification from their state conventions) had already first changed the state rules on the binding effect of pledges made by bound delegates when selected. Those state committee rules are given the force of law by the relevant state election codes, and the RNC certainly can’t change those. Have you seen anyone — other than crazy GOP national assemblyman Curly Haugland from North Dakota, who as best I can tell is a very long- and well-established nutcase — explain how that could be done?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  40. yes yes yes let go and let trump

    why is that so hard for people

    happyfeet (831175)

  41. The natural appeal of Chavez
    The natural appeal of Mao
    The natural appeal of Stalin
    The natural appeal of Castro
    The natural appeal of Obama

    None of which are worth two chits or worthy of a thinking man. Just like Trump.

    John Hitchcock (d7429a)

  42. Pneumatic tube voting sounds fun though.

    SarahW (67599f)

  43. Beldar,

    You are right that many delegates are bound by state law no matter what the convention rules are. But not all of them. And each state has its own rules. I would expect the convention to adopt whatever rules make it easiest for people not to vote for Trump. I, for one, would accept any fine of jail time necessary to change my vote in this case.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  44. *fine or jail time

    Why I keep typing of when I mean or is beyond me.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  45. Monkey also haz own rules. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pUAeHVLZHc

    SarahW (67599f)

  46. he sticks his lil monkey hand right in the pup’s mouth it’s like monkey steve irwin

    happyfeet (831175)

  47. thank you bindi that’s very true about the bubbles

    i never really realized it before

    happyfeet (831175)

  48. Strange, being its so close to “buboes.”

    SarahW (67599f)

  49. Simon,

    I believe an ill prepared freshman trying to BS a slow fifth grader might be closer to the mark (or marks). A prof probably wouldn’t risk the potential brain damage involved in letting him go beyond the first definitive idiotic utterance unless he wanted to make him an object lesson. He continues to operate on a reality show level because it’s the level of patter to which he is most accustomed.

    Without definitive evidence of the existence of second gear, I remain doubtful of his ability to shift out of first.

    Rick Ballard (edb5cf)

  50. Again, Rick, I think Trump could easily show he was a serious candidate.

    He chooses not to do so.

    Simon Jester (76d272)

  51. it’s easy to call Mr. Trump stupid it’s a lot harder to make the case about how he’s actually a pretty smart guy what will be a fair/decent president and probably do a lot of good for america for example the immigration

    but people are lazy and plus it’s a beautiful sunday

    oops

    happyfeet (831175)

  52. Simon,

    He has the requisite intelligence to do so but I don’t believe he has the requisite communication skill level at all. He’s very good at the simple mark level but I’ve read enough of his interviews to understand that his focus is always on tuning his pitch to repetitious and disconnected platitudes interwoven with self-aggrandizing anecdotes.

    Rick Ballard (edb5cf)

  53. How about Boob Maverick? For at least two reasons.

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/3/2016 @ 11:20 am

    Sorta like Ethel Kennedy- the family member who everyone avoids speaking of at all costs. 🙂

    Bill H (dcdd7b)

  54. Trump could hire experts, have them put together briefing books, and do some studying to be conversant with these issues. At least his major ones. But he hasn’t. And won’t.

    He’s not stupid; in many ways he’s quite smart. But his skills in one area don’t translate well in another. Running for president is not like running a business. At some point we have to stop thinking it is. But he just doesn’t care about studying or boning up on these issues. He thinks his own thoughts off the top of his head are sufficient. All he has around him are “Yes men”. Like his supporters there’s nobody to tell him he’s wrong.

    His worst enemy – other than himself and his own ego – is his supporters. Since he doesn’t have to change he won’t.

    If you really want him to win you’d be banging on his door and telling him he needs to change course.

    SteveMG (d28eb5)

  55. Question for this esteemed forum: Trump is now calling for the RNC to ban Kasich from the remaining primaries. Is this simply a front to make it look like he isn’t loving life with JK siphoning Cruz votes, with the added bonus of laying another predicate for bolting the party in the general election. Or, is he just that stooopid to believe Kasich is hurting him with the voters?

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  56. #29 Mr happyfeet,

    When the Democrats win the White House, they are only guaranteed 4 years to do more damage to the country. But when they get a Supreme Court justice confirmed, that’s not just a 4 year commitment—it’s a lifetime commitment.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  57. President Trump is a catalyst

    That’s not a policy position, Happyfeet. That’s simple projection. When- not if, but when- that doesn’t work, where will you turn? By then the election will be long over and all you’ll have left is an incurable hangover that lasts for the remainder of a Trump administration.

    With the support you blatantly give to him, are you going to back your convictions with a vote? Tell me, after all of this that you’ll at least stand up and be counted, even if it finally isn’t for Trump.

    Bill H (dcdd7b)

  58. With the support you blatantly give to him, are you going to back your convictions with a vote?

    srsly doubt it

    happyfeet (831175)

  59. if he goes third party and it’s the only way to save America from Hillary then yes yes i will do the voting maybe

    happyfeet (831175)

  60. Oh, I doubt it, Mr. Feet. You seem awful busy with your studying and reading and turd dumping in internet punchbowls to vote.

    I loved this bit from Mr. Feet:

    “…it’s easy to call Mr. Trump stupid it’s a lot harder to make the case about how he’s actually a pretty smart guy what will be a fair/decent president and probably do a lot of good for america for example the immigration…”

    Oh, I agree: it is very difficult to make the case that Trump is smart and would be decent President and do some good for the nation.

    And indeed many people are lazy about this business, as you have repeatedly demonstrated (compared to folks posting in general). That’s okay, maybe: this is weird recreation for you.

    As for immigration, it appears Trump’s opinions are, um, constantly evolving.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/03/04/donald-trumps-immigration-stance-takes-another-turn/

    Trump is doing the whole P.T. Barnum trick:

    http://www.ptbarnum.org/egress.html

    And folks who are snookered won’t want to admit they are marks of a con man. They never do. It makes them feel stupid. And con men like Trump know it, and bank on it.

    Simon Jester (76d272)

  61. Mr happyfeet,

    You said in #59 that you seriously doubt you would vote for Trump.
    That’s good to hear. Ultimately, if you believed that The Mr Donald would actually be good for the country, you would vote for him. And if you actually believed that Hillary would be bad for the country, you would vote against her.

    But you do provide good entertainment value. I especially enjoy the cooking tips!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  62. Beldar:

    The ultimate truth of Trump is that he’s all about nothing but Trump.

    The ultimate truth of Trumpkins (unless and until they repent) is that they are all about nothing but Trump.

    I have come to the conclusion that the ultimate truth for Trump is this is about money, but for his followers this is about getting as close as they can to celebritie: Cartman’s “Whatever. I do what I want.”

    On another point, delegates may be bound to vote for Trump on the first ballot but as I understand the articles, that doesn’t mean they have to vote as Trump directs when it comes to convention rules and procedures. For instance, if there is a vote authorizing Rule 40 or any similar rules, they can do as Cruz suggests and not what Trump wants.

    DRJ (15874d)

  63. Well, Ed, I’m guessing that Trump thinks that the moderate Kasich will win some delegates in PA and other places.

    I’m not sure if Kasich’s presence steals votes from Trump or from Cruz.

    Kasich seems to really think that his presence will help nobody get enough first ballot, and then go from there.

    MD not exactly in Philly (8419a1)

  64. second-ballot harvardtrash is not a recipe for win

    happyfeet (831175)

  65. Ultimately, if you believed that The Mr Donald would actually be good for the country, you would vote for him.

    what kind of half-baked logic is this

    happyfeet (831175)

  66. Mr happyfeet,

    I think I just did some jujitsu on you.
    See, you just admitted that you wouldn’t vote for Trump.
    Me, too!

    We’re in the same boat. We each believe that voting for The Mr Donald requires half-baked logic!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  67. i maybe might will surprise you i can be very mercuriable

    happyfeet (831175)

  68. Good luck on that CS. It’s just a game with that fellow.

    But on a happier note, take a look at this. Nk and DRJ will like this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SQD4Kj6oak

    Simon Jester (76d272)

  69. Kevin M to Beldar

    You are right that many delegates are bound by state law no matter what the convention rules are.

    The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that state law has no application to what a political party convention does because it is a private organization, but the Republican generally honors these rules.

    I think the case would be O’Brien v. Brown, 409 U.S. 1 (1972) except that that’s aper curiam opinion.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/409/1/case.html

    There’s a discussion of this subject at:

    http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2537&context=californialawreview

    There’s another thing to consider:

    Each state political party is an independent legal entity. It would be perfectly possible for a state party to substitute the name of somebody else for the person chosen by the convention, and if there is a big split in the Republican Party this is likely to happen. Of course this might entail the state party seceding from the national party.

    If Trump is the nominee, he’s likely not to be the Republican candidate in all 50 states (or 51 jurisdictions) and if somebody else is the nominee that nominee might also not wind up being the candiate of the Republican Party in all 50 states.

    Sammy Finkelman (8c951a)

  70. My concern is that Trump will wait until the convention to offer the VP to Rubio or Kasich, whoever has the most delegates. He could use that to convince the Rubio or Kasich delegates to flip to Trump and put him over the top.

    DRJ (15874d)

  71. I found video of Trump in action. There are scenes with Trumpsters, too.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76LFPtZ0f0c

    John Hitchcock (d7429a)

  72. This is a long, long comment about lawfare in the 2016 election cycle. Apologies for the Beldar Wall-o’-Text™, but most of it is transcript that actually reads pretty quickly.

    ***

    On Fox News Sunday today, when questioned by Chris Wallace about the three remaining candidates’ waffling in the past week on their respective pledges to support the GOP nominee, Donald Trump attempted to poo-pooh the whole subject: He said it didn’t matter, that he is going to be the nominee, and that he was “releasing Ted Cruz” from his pledge. Trump agreed that the party needs to be unified behind its nominee, but he said he wouldn’t insist on Ted Cruz’ support.

    ***

    Trump may have been thinking about the “pledge” in terms of the candidates’ answers, at a series of primary debates (beginning with the very first one) whether they would pledge to support the eventual GOP nominee. By shows of hands and verbal confirmations, all did — repeatedly, including after the voting got underway in Iowa.

    Trump, so very typically and narcissistically, treated this in his answer to Chris Wallace as if it were a personal pledge made by each candidate to support each of the others personally. It was no such thing, and not ever phrased that way; instead, the public pledge, as set up by the question and made by the candidate, was “to support the eventual GOP nominee.” This was a public pledge being made by the candidates not primarily to the GOP leadership, but rather to the American voting public in general, and in particular, to America’s Republicans — that is to say, those people who are registered members of the GOP in those states requiring registration, or otherwise considering themselves affiliated with and committed to the GOP in those states which don’t. This also includes not only those who’ve voted in past GOP primaries and for GOP candidates in past elections, but those who are new Republicans — i.e., who’ve voted already, or still plan to vote, in this cycle’s GOP primaries to help choose the GOP’s nominee. The whole point of the pledge was to induce GOP voters to cast their votes in reliance on the candidate’s promise — support for the party’s presidentialy nominee generally being both the defining characteristic, and the absolute minimum threshold, for considering oneself a “Republican.”

    What is, or isn’t, sufficient grounds to revoke this public but never-legally-binding pledge is another subject, however, in which law is irrelevant.

    ***

    But in the next segment, when Chris Wallace began questioning RNC Chairman Reince Priebus on “the pledge,” Priebus instantly interpreted that to be something else entirely different from the debate assurances to the voting GOP public:

    CW: Chairman Priebus, you just heard Donald Trump. He’s keeping open the possibility that that he may not support the Republican nominee if it’s not him, keeping open the possibility that he might run as an independent candidate. Does that worry you?

    RP: Well, not really. I mean, I think some of the stuff is leverage and candidates that are posturing for a potentially open convention.

    But look, one of the things that I think people are missing is that this pledge — this, this pledge to support the eventual nominee, comes from, really, a data agreement that the candidates signed. So without boring everyone to tears, we’ve spent hundreds of millions of dollars on data and information over the last several years at the RNC. These candidates have access to that data. In exchange for getting stuff from the national party, we say, “Well, are you willing to support the nominee?” And they say, “Yes, we are,” and they sign — they sign a document.

    My point would be: If a candidate isn’t willing to commit to the principles and values of our party, then they should just tell us. But if they commit to it, they should do it. These candidates are running to be the nominee of our party. We’re not running for their loyalty. They’re running so that one of them will be chosen by us….

    He is surely referring to the formal written contract regarding “data sharing and cooperation” that was signed by all the candidates, including Trump, in May 2015:

    “The 2016 election will be a data-driven campaign cycle, and I am enthusiastic about the possibilities these agreements provide,” Priebus said in a statement shared with the Washington Examiner. “These list exchanges will allow the RNC to benefit from enhancements made by these PACs and campaigns so that the RNC, the eventual presidential nominee, and Republican candidates up and down the ticket will have an even more robust data for use in the general election.”

    The agreements are a two-way street, as the campaigns and political action committees will share with the RNC updates to any of the data they use in their political activities.

    POTUS Campaign 2016 — meet your new best friend, Intellectual Property Law! And what is intellectual property law really, really good at? Injunctions! As in, cease and desist orders shutting down all “infringing uses,” and requiring the licensee to come back into compliance with all of its contractual representations, warranties, and waivers. Continued violations are punishable as contempt of court, meaning you’re jailed until you stop violating.

    A campaign surely has many First Amendment political rights that the government may not abridge. But may a campaign freely bargain away, by contract, its practical freedom to pursue those rights under a particular banner? Could the RNC actually use these agreements to effectively enjoin — to the point of practical impossibility — a rump third-party candidacy mounted by any of the candidates who signed?

    IP agreements typically contain extensive provisions fixing jurisdiction and venue where the IP-owner wants it, and sometimes with stipulations which relieve the IP-owner of most of the burdens of trying to prove its entitlement to an injunction (e.g., a stipulation that something is “irreparable harm” for which there’s “no adequate remedy at law,” all magic language for injunction cases). I’d really, really love to read the fine print in these data-sharing agreements, but I haven’t been able to find them online, at least not yet.

    But back to Priebus — for there’s more:

    CW: I want to get back to this question — you say that when Trump and the other candidates got the voter data from the RNC, they signed an agreement. Did they — in that agreement, did they pledge — in return for getting the data, did they pledge to support the nominee, and are you prepared to enforce that agreement?

    RP: Well, I mean: Listen, I’m not going to get into every detail of the agreement, but it’s a, it’s a, it’s a data exchange agreement with the RNC, and among the things that they can use at the RNC. One of the things that we say is, “Look, we’ll give you these things, but you have to agree that you’re going to support the party and the eventual nominee.” They’ve all agreed to that, and we’ll see what happens.

    I would just say this: I really do believe, though, that this is posturing, and I know posturing can have an effect. And it means that the challenges could be greater. So I’m not dispelling your point [sic — Did he get this from Rubio, or vice versa? “Let’s dispel with this fiction?”–Beldar] in these questions. But I personally think these folks are posturing, and I think they want to be loyal to the party. I think they will be loyal to the party. But really it’s about the people out there, and respecting the voices of the folks both in the states and on the floor of the convention.

    CW: I just want to button this down, briefly, if I can. Because you say that there’s an agreement —

    RP: Sure.

    CW: — you gave them something of value, which was this voter data, access to your files. So are you prepared if they break the agreement to enforce it? In effect, what I’m saying is: Are you prepared to sue Donald Trump or one of the other candidates if they don’t support the nominee as they pledged to do to get the data?

    RP: Well, look. No one’s broken the pledge. Certainly, talking about what might be hypothetical is one thing. It’s certainly not any standing — it doesn’t provide standing to do anything. It’s just a bunch of talk at this point. But certainly, we expect that when candidates make commitments, that they keep them. And that’s about what I’m going to say about it.

    So says the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, speaking in his capacity as CEO of the owner and licensor of the intellectual property at issue.

    Recall that Ted Cruz’ first big involvement with politics was as part of the George W. Bush campaign in 2000, which transitioned into a role in the George W. Bush Florida legal team for Bush v. Gore. Can there be any doubt in anyone’s mind that at some point, if he doesn’t get his milk and cookies, Donald Trump is going to sue everyone in sight? It will be his last, most pathetic spasm. And I’m pretty sure Cruz already has a team set up to handle this when, inevitably, it becomes active litigation.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  73. Actually, I see an editing error I meant to correct in all that: I’ve seen multiple reports that Trump later signed, but I don’t think he had yet signed by the date of my link from May 15, 2015.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  74. @ DRJ (#63): I share that understanding — delegates pledged to a candidate are only bound to vote for him, not for his preferred rules.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  75. And thanks for that great link to the Austin American-Statesman, too, DRJ! Fascinating!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  76. yadda, yadda, nixon might have said it with more finesse,

    narciso (732bc0)

  77. here’s the more interesting story,

    http://panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/en/

    narciso (732bc0)

  78. Great stuff, Beldar.

    Hmm. Let’s see. The RNC gets to cherry pick the Appellate District in which it chooses to file. Gets the result it wants. And on expedited appeal goes to SCOTUS. Oopsie…4-4.

    Of course, Kennedy and/or Roberts are just moronic enough to blow that one, too.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  79. This purports to be what Trump signed on September 3, 2015, but it’s not the data sharing and cooperation agreement that Priebus was referencing. Still looking for a full-text copy of that ….

    Beldar (fa637a)

  80. CW is always no holds barred tough on Democrats when he interviews them. Oh, that’s right… he isn’t.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  81. And here’s confirmation that Trump signed the data sharing agreement with the RNC in December 2015. Still can’t find a copy of the full document, though.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  82. @ Col. H (#81): Wallace was unprepared to confront Trump effectively on the Michelle Fields story. He let Trump completely rewrite the narrative into “Poor Corey Lewandowski,” and Wallace conceded — wrongly — when Trump demanded Wallace admit that Fields had changed her story. I think Trump consistently gets the better of Wallace; Baier and Kelly have done much better jobs of standing up to his bullying.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  83. I thought Trump neatly summed himself up when he commented last week:

    Always be around unsuccessful people because everybody will respect you. Do you understand that?”

    Although he made the comment to an audience of college students, his cult of celebrity supporters surely must realize he’s talking about them. That they don’t understand this, and perhaps actually believe that he holds them in the same high regard as they do him, is not only sad, but shows the dangers of idol worship. Blindness ensues.

    Of course, it goes without saying that Trump’s definition of respect is severely misguided. And wrong.

    Dana (0ee61a)

  84. Beldar, you should leave out capital letters, add vulgar comments about women and companies, and then a recipe or two.

    Easier.

    More seriously, thank you for going to the trouble to keep people informed. I truly appreciate it.

    Simon Jester (76d272)

  85. Very often what happens in IP injunction fights is that the licensee/infringer tries to give back the data and reconstruct its operations independently using non-infringing sources. But there’s often a problem of commingling, and it’s very hard sometimes to prove that your “new stuff” isn’t actually “fruit of the poisoned tree” that you could also be enjoined for using. This kind of court fight could get really hairy, really fast.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  86. Dana, I suspect what bothers me most about Trump—and in this he is similar to our current POTUS—is his quite clear contempt for his followers.

    As Glenn Reynolds puts it: “Hey rube….!

    I seriously wonder if Trump is interested in seeing how awful he can look and still get reflexive followers.

    He certainly doesn’t respect people who follow along.

    Simon Jester (76d272)

  87. Simon,

    I understand why Trump is the way he is, but that doesn’t explain his followers. I understand that his supporters are seeking vengeance through a surrogate who they believe is powerful enough to inflict it, but the blind loyalty and misreading of their relationship to Trump strikes me as self-loathing.

    Dana (0ee61a)

  88. Wallace is a deeply committed and hopelessly cynical company man (the company being the DC establishment) who attempts to remain relevant through sh*t-stirring and otherwise obfuscating principled politics, what little remains. Do not doubt for a nano-second that he was carrying water for Rupert and Roger, who are loving the unprecedented rating status Fox News now enjoys.

    One incredibly salutary consequence of Trump’s candidacy is the clarity (tm Dennis Prager) we are getting in regards to the media of the Right. Hannity, Larson, Hewitt, even Rush to an extent, and others have been exposed. Levin and Steyn, no shock, have been stellar and staunch constitutionalists.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  89. What you hate is what you have become.

    ropelight (618a98)

  90. well wallace was of the same mindset, as andrea mitchell, thought reagan had it easy,

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/if_this_is_tuesday_it_must_be_wisconsin.html

    narciso (732bc0)

  91. if you start thinking like brooksie check your six:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/new-york-times/

    narciso (732bc0)

  92. Dana, it sounds trivial, but this really is part of that phenomenon, I suspect:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efHCdKb5UWc

    I don’t blame people for being angry. I do question if they see clearly the cost to real human beings. Like my own children.

    Simon Jester (76d272)

  93. About Rubio possibly being Trump’s veep:

    Mr. Rubio, who praised Mr. Cruz as “the only conservative left in the race” after his exit, has been perhaps the most conspicuous holdout. He is one of the few Republican senators who gets along well with Mr. Cruz, and the two have been in touch since Mr. Rubio withdrew from the race. But Mr. Rubio is likely to run again for president in 2020 should Republicans lose the White House this year, and, in making scores of thank-you calls to donors in recent days, he has been discouraged by some party financiers from supporting Mr. Cruz, according to a Republican strategist briefed on the calls. Without Mr. Rubio’s imprimatur, many of his backers seem disinclined to back Mr. Cruz.

    He would sacrifice his political reputation and his character and not support Cruz, the obvious true conservative in the bunch, just so he doesn’t offend those who might financially back him in 2020? If so, shame on him.

    Dana (0ee61a)

  94. Mr. Finkelman, did you get that citation from Curly Haugland, by chance? He misconstrues that case in much the same way that you did.

    It probably doesn’t mean what you think it means, and it doesn’t have anything to do with anything I’ve been talking about in comments here. Explaining why in detail is a larger task than I have a taste for undertaking today, but in general. There are parts of the elections process, including the nominations process, that are delegated by both state and federal law to the national and state political parties. There are other parts of that process that aren’t. Vote counting in public elections, for example, ended up being very much a fully justiciable issue in the SCOTUS in Bush v. Gore. The kind of credentialing dispute that was involved in O’Brien, by contrast, usually is handled by state party rules and decisions, and if in court at all beyond that, in the state courts.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  95. Beldar #83… I dunno… Trump didn’t impress me with his continued garbage about Fields – although I have to say that she has come across as a little wiggy on occasion… I used to watch her on Eric Bolling’s Saturday morning show. She once said that some celebrity that they’d been talking about this one morning had once tried to pick her up at a gas station (came across as a little bizarre)… just sayin’…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  96. By the way, he says he is going to eliminate the $19 trillion national debt in eight years.

    even if he is promising more than he can deliver, at least he’s heading in the right direction.

    The other side will be promising $40 trillion or bust, because equality!

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  97. the folks who ensured cochran, murkowski, roberts, stayed in office, were confused, shirley you can’t be serious,

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/donald_trump_and_the_farmers_mule.html

    the difference with mitt, is he seemed to reading from a script in esperanto,

    narciso (732bc0)

  98. His big mouth is the gift that keeps on giving.

    Peggy Noonan, the at least semi-respected semi-conservative columnist, is still living down her Obama infatuation of 8 years ago.

    If nothing else, I’ll enjoy the Shorty-philic trying to live down their comparable infatuation in the coming months and years. Over just the past few days, it’s been fun watching the slope getting slippery under Ann Coulter’s feet.

    ThOR (a52560)

  99. And in more Cruz Newz from North Dakota:

    Ted Cruz’s preferred candidates won the vast majority of convention delegates available in North Dakota over the weekend, taking 18 of 25 slots in the state in another show of organizational strength over Donald Trump.

    ….

    The North Dakota delegation has been heavily sought after because they are free agents from the first ballot in Cleveland, able to support Cruz, Trump or John Kasich. State rules do not, however, require to name the candidate they support before being elected — leaving their votes in question up until the convention in July.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  100. Ho hum. All Ted does is win. 😉

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  101. A true factoid from today’s WaPo:

    Trump redrew his schedule to devote the final days to barnstorming the state [Wisconsin] — even missing his new grandson’s bris — in an apparent effort to catch Cruz.

    Best wishes to the youngster. Mazel tof!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  102. “It was the greatest bris, the biggest bris, it was yuuge.”

    Yes, sometimes the jokes write themselves.

    SteveMG (c86c6b)

  103. It appears the Donald got ONE delegate in ND.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  104. The North Dakota delegation has been heavily sought after because they are free agents from the first ballot in Cleveland, able to support Cruz, Trump or John Kasich. State rules do not, however, require to name the candidate they support before being elected — leaving their votes in question up until the convention in July.

    And you’re celebrating this politburo appointment because the Soviet picked your guy?

    Any values you hold that haven’t been chucked down the crapper yet.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  105. Always be around unsuccessful people because everybody will respect you. Do you understand that?”

    Yes indeed. B’s hire C’s.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  106. Which candidate for the Republican nomination declared we need all the centralized control over all this US land? And which candidate said to return the land to the states to do as the states decided?

    Politburo indeed! Dumbfsck.

    John Hitchcock (d7429a)

  107. By the way, he says he is going to eliminate the $19 trillion national debt in eight years.

    This ought to scare the bejeebus out of everyone, because he might do this much the way he got rid of his debts 4 times before. Just appoint a Federal Reserve Chair of like “mind” and print up a bunch of trillion-dollar bills and buy up all the bonds. Easy-peasy.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  108. Here is one of the dumber articles I’ve ever read. The guy goes into endless detail to prove that Cruz is almost mathematically eliminated from a first ballot win, so he should give up.

    And water is wet. Linked from the top of Drudge, of course, as:

    Cruz Will Be Knocked Out of Delegate Race By April 26 — Even If He Wins WI!

    (and what is it with Gateway Pundit? Does anyone know where his marbles are?)

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  109. Kevin, I honestly don’t most of these people actually believe Trump can do darned thing.

    I do think that they believe he can beat HRC. I don’t agree.

    But these folks aren’t Trump supporters. They are pyromaniacs. That’s fine if it just impacted them. They can live up in the hills with their colloidal silver generators and bicycle lamps on a pile of MREs.

    I’m much more concerned with people. And if things go to pieces, the result will not likely be some free market paradise.

    Simon Jester (76d272)

  110. maybe if there was more of a pushback, heck an acknowledgement would be good start:

    http://coldfury.com/2016/04/03/federal-blackmail/

    narciso (732bc0)

  111. They are pyromaniacs.

    You misspelled nihilist saboteur.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  112. 95. Beldar (fa637a) — 4/3/2016 @ 5:23 pm

    Mr. Finkelman, did you get that citation from Curly Haugland, by chance? He misconstrues that case in much the same way that you did.

    No, I remember reading, periodically, about this in the New York Times and elsewhere. I never had the case but I got it now from Google.

    Key word searches seem to have turned up this case, which doesn’t seem to be that closely related:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-766.pdf

    NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL. v.LOPEZ TORRES ET AL.

    Also known as Lopez Torrez v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections 552 U.S. 196, 202 (2008).

    I found this too, which discusses a couple of cases, some which didn’t reach the Supreme Court,, and was written before 1972:

    http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3840&context=clr

    Attempts to invoke the Equal Protection clause with regard to selection of conventon delegates did not succeed in expanding the application of federal law on grounds of state action beyond the well known white primary cases.

    It’ll take some more searching, probably tomorrow, to find something like what I remember.

    Sammy Finkelman (8c951a)

  113. trunpkins what do they matter, until the bell tolls for others,

    http://nypost.com/2016/04/02/nyu-students-who-back-trump-fear-for-their-safety-on-campus/

    narciso (732bc0)

  114. Mr. Finkelman, there are tons of law schools who’d love to get your tuition dollars. I’m not for hire.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  115. Maybe someone else here will volunteer.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  116. Beldar:

    It probably doesn’t mean what you think it means, and it doesn’t have anything to do with anything I’ve been talking about in comments here.

    I noticed that O’Brien didn’t seem to deal with the issue and wasn’t even a regular decision and so I wondered if I had the right case or if there was another case. That’s one reason I want to try to find what I read.

    I know it had to do with the individually elected delegates from Illinois in 1972 who were not seated because their racial composition didn’t comply with a quota, [but they were elected!] and delegates selected by Jesse Jackson were substituted for those associated with Mayor Daley, although the important thing, of course was who they were going to vote for!

    And the Supreme Court ruled, or so it was commonly reported, that there was no recourse because a party was a private association. Except O’Brien seems to have been decided on other grounds. This used to be mentioned here and there from time to time.

    In 1972 there was also a challenge by the Humphrey forces to the California delegation, because the Democratic party, along with instituting quotas, had outlawed winner take all primaries.

    This is discussed here:

    http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/frc2008041001/

    The Credentials committee did strip McGovern of a lot of his delegates, but on the opening night of the convention the McGovern forces won the California challenge, 1,618.28 to 1,238.22 and won back his delegates. Credentials challenges used to be a big thing in contested conventions.

    Anyway, since 1972, although the California winner take all rule was accepted forexpedient reasons, the Democratic Party ignores winner take all state laws, and the Republican Party honors them, I think, or maybe it doesn’t do that anymore but relies on local party rules.

    But the Democratic Party, since after 1980, has many super-delegates.

    Explaining why in detail is a larger task than I have a taste for undertaking today, but in general. There are parts of the elections process, including the nominations process, that are delegated by both state and federal law to the national and state political parties. There are other parts of that process that aren’t. Vote counting in public elections, for example, ended up being very much a fully justiciable issue in the SCOTUS in Bush v. Gore. The kind of credentialing dispute that was involved in O’Brien, by contrast, usually is handled by state party rules and decisions, and if in court at all beyond that, in the state courts

    And here you were discussing whether delegates were bound by state law to vote as pledged at a convention. I know it’s probably not even the case that Electors in the November election are legally bound although in many states laws were passed. This is just an issue that is not opened up. When Electors actually vote, in many cases the whole thing is very pro forma, and carelessly done, and people even substitute.

    Sammy Finkelman (8c951a)

  117. I’m sorry I’m such a disappointment to you, Mr. Finkelman. Go in peace.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  118. Ah, Beldar. You don’t know Teh Sammy.

    He’s pretty unique.

    Simon Jester (76d272)

  119. Like politicians were not bad enough. We’ve got to get lawyers involved at the convention, too. Maybe a Montana Miners Court with the jurors plaiting the nooses as they’re hearing the case? 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  120. nk, did you see the Trump caterpillar video I posted?

    Simon Jester (76d272)

  121. Sammy, if it is any consolation, you are right that state parties probably do not have to put the national nominee on the state ballot, assuming that the state allows the state party to control that.

    Some states may well regard the national party’s announcement of their nominee as authoritative — especially since all the exceptions in recent years have been from the racist wing of the Democrat party. Note that, unlike primaries, the state is conducting the general election and may not give a hoot what the state party thinks. The state would have a difficult time putting a name other than the national party nominee on the ballot if the state party objected, but that’s not what’s at issue.

    However, none of this was what we were talking about.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  122. Sammeh.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  123. Yes, I did Simon. Thank you.

    It reminded me of the 1979 Chicago mayoral election. Or maybe the 1983 one. Woolly caterpillars were a thing at the time — someone had proposed that they could predict harsh winters — and Jane Byrne’s husband accused one of her opponents of having woolly caterpillars in his head.

    nk (dbc370)

  124. lawyers are a party to everything, didn’t you see the devil’s advocate, the template for this week will be wolfram and hart, I mean mossack and fonseca,

    narciso (732bc0)

  125. No, Mr. Finkelman & I have a long-standing acquaintance.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  126. Come to Culver City and be photographed in front of Wolfram & Hart.

    http://www.thestudiotour.com/sonypictures/images/sony_hq2.jpg

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  127. I note, btw, that The Gateway Pundit deletes critical comments.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  128. I’m not that big a fan of the Buffyverse, but I probably should be. One of the reasons I enjoy Game of Thrones so much is that there are no lawyers in Westeros — although there are certainly characters who, in an alternative universe, would be lawyers. If I lived in Westeros, I’d surely have had to take the Black myself by now.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  129. Beldar, have you ever read the Judge Steele stories by Lon Williams?

    nk (dbc370)

  130. “I want to be crystal clear: These attacks are garbage,” Cruz wrote on Facebook. “For Donald J. Trump to enlist his friends at the National Enquirer and his political henchmen to do his bidding shows you that there is no low Donald won’t go.”

    http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/marco-rubio-allies-spread-ted-cruz/2016/03/25/id/720949/

    Daily Beast: Marco Rubio Allies Spread Cruz Affair Story

    Who do I write to to get a Patterico retraction?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  131. @ nk (#132): I haven’t — do you recommend them? If so, I will!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  132. Ask Erica grieder, is she Bill’s daughter, she knows the initial names.

    narciso (1e413e)

  133. Is the email you show on your blog still good?

    nk (dbc370)

  134. Beldar–

    If you watch it, watch it in order from the beginning, preferably in 4×3 as the good lord intended. Much of its charm is the continuity and character growth as everyone meets the twin challenges of high school and the Hellmouth (which is under the high school). Also the producers had some growing pains, with a few truly terrible episodes (1×04, 2×20) in the first two seasons, but make up for it with some truly wondrous ones.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  135. Beldar’s email.

    nk (dbc370)

  136. keep lying pt. The article says nothing of the sort.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  137. First line of a story published on Friday, March 25th, which was linked above (#133) by a Trumpkin shill (italics mine):

    Rumors of Sen. Ted Cruz’s alleged adultery have been circulating for months.

    First line of last paragraph of same story (italics mine):

    This week, the National Enquirer published a story alleging Cruz had flings with five women – a report Cruz refuted as “garbage,” and for which he blamed rival Donald Trump.

    Number of retractions or corrections from Patterico.com earned (due to reading comprehension failures on the part of the requester): Zero.

    Always trust content from Patterico.com (although not necessarily its commenters).

    Beldar (fa637a)

  138. @ nk, yes indeed.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  139. Give me a few minutes and check it for an email from Amazon telling you that some guy with my initials made you a gift of an ebook.

    nk (dbc370)

  140. It might be longer than a few minutes; the turnaround time is up to Amazon.

    nk (dbc370)

  141. http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/02/north-dakotas-gop-primary-is-today-sort-of-well-not-really/

    According to the very short summary of the state rules, North Dakota’s GOP leadership decided last year that the will of the voters really shouldn’t be a consideration. (Emphasis added)

    Friday 1 April – Sunday 3 April 2016: The North Dakota State Republican Convention convenes. The State Committee voted on 13 August 2015 to not have any type of Presidential caucus or straw poll.

    In a Presidential election year, the Committee … will present a slate of delegates… to the State Republican Endorsing Convention from persons who applied to the committee from nomination.
    Three party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the North Dakota’s Republican Party, will attend the convention by virtue of their position.

    North Dakota’s delegates … shall caucus … to discuss voluntarily apportioning delegate representation on the first ballot … However, any such apportionment on the first ballot shall be strictly voluntary. The delegates remain free to vote their conscience on all balloting.

    So no election. Just a decree from the party. Politburo.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  142. A competent person, planning to mount a presidential bid, surely would have paid attention to North Dakota’s practices for selecting delegates, whatever they may be, long before this week.

    An incompetent person, pretending to be competent in an area in which he’s a dangerous amateur — someone whom the Democrats would beat at everything, daily — wouldn’t bother, but would instead complain about it after the fact, as would his shills. They’d probably even accuse a bunch of North Dakotans of horrible things, too — calling them communists and such. I doubt that would win many new friends in North Dakota.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  143. You’re welcome, Beldar. I hope you enjoy it.

    nk (dbc370)

  144. You have to expect to catch some flack when a self appointed few claiming to represent a State don’t even trouble themselves to pay lip service to the electorate.

    hey’d probably even accuse a bunch of North Dakotans of horrible things, too — calling them communists and such.

    What would you prefer I call them? Kings? Dukes? Overlords?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  145. Which candidate for the Republican nomination declared we need all the centralized control over all this US land? And which candidate said to return the land to the states to do as the states decided?

    Politburo indeed! Dumbfsck.
    John Hitchcock (d7429a) — 4/3/2016 @ 6:38 pm

    The lying liar who lies a lot completely ignored that. Because his god, Donald Trump, is far closer to the politburo mentality than the Conservative candidate he has done his best to deceitfully destroy.

    John Hitchcock (d7429a)

  146. One thing you can’t call them is delegates. No public vote means they were not delegated.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  147. John, I had no idea you were a Stuart Smalley fan.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  148. Based on past experience, I should have guessed though.

    It’s not a surprise.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  149. How long will it be before Trump tweets out that North Dakota is bleeding from its wherever.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  150. And the lying liar who lies a lot still can’t answer the question, having seen it twice, because the answer to the question harms his worship of his god, the Lying Leftist Democrat Donald Trump.

    John Hitchcock (d7429a)

  151. President Trump will build a wall to exclude North Dakota from the rest of the United States. And he’ll make them pay for it.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  152. Sorry what question?
    Why would you ask a question of a lying liar who lies?

    Except if you know yourself in your heart of hearts that you’re full of shyt, it doesn’t make any sense.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  153. A few points related to some of the talk here in the comments.

    I don’t get why people assume that both Trump and Cruz are going to be screwed going into an open convention. The vast majority of Republicans support both candidates and while delegates are a different animal they tend to be pretty conservative folks. I’d say Cruz has an advantage here given his somewhat stronger support from the “very conservative” crowd and his organizational skill. I think it is true that the Establishment itself does not want Cruz, either, but that’s different than delegates, is it not? In fact, the establishment likely dislikes him more than Trump but right now their immediate purposes are served by supporting Cruz.

    I also don’t think a “fresh face” is necessarily poison in the general but it needs to be a candidate that has a history of positions in line with Trump and Cruz positions (skeptical of trade, hawk on immigration, judicial conservative). We can’t nominate a Paul Ryan given how much the base dislikes him right now. That really would be suicide–if the Court weren’t so important to me I would actually note vote. Romney might have been feasible had he endorsed Cruz and stayed out of the weird theatrics but he’s unacceptable given his Rubio support and personal attacks on Trump.

    Finally, I think Cruz will be in a big bind because, whatever happens, he will not overcome Trump’s delegate lead and he has always said the delegate leader should get nomination. Trump gave him somewhat of an out with his recent attacks but he will still look a liar. And the more I see the more apt the label fits. How can you not see, for example, this clip, and think any different. Honest question.

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  154. Old Reader, I agree with you that we can’t nominate Donald Trump, considering how unpopular he is with the base.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  155. In the story Corey Lewandowski Contradicts Donald Trump: Ted Cruz Wasn’t Involved In Melania Trump Ad, Patterico, in a post script, accuses Trump of being behind the story of Cruz’s infidelity.

    Subsequent to that we learn Rubio was behind the “Cruz cheats on his wife” story.

    So ignoring the bad temper and general surliness of the conehead, who do I have to write to get a retraction?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  156. It’s a dilemma. Should I always trust content from Patterico even when it’s false?

    Balls in your court baby.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  157. Old Reader – Here’s my two cents on how Cruz gets screwed. Assuming multiple ballots, the delegates are less and less encumbered. Who are many of these, Cruz delegates inclusive? Establishment GOP apparatchiks. So…even as most expect a fair percentage of Trump delegates to move to Cruz, there could easily be a rump movement for establishment Cruz delegates to move away, assuring neither will get to 1237.

    I do not for a nanosecond underestimate the depths of the fear and loathing of Cruz by those in power. Didja notice in ND just yesterday the refusal of the GOP establishment to adopt the Cruz amendment mandating a declaration of support for a specific candidate by potential delegates? Didja further notice that not one establishment delegate won? Cruz got almost his entire slate in. There is no possible way the national GOPe acts out of anything but self-interest in Cleveland. Just watch the rules fights coming soon. As of tonight, I go with the entrenched power winning out.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  158. papertiger, we haven’t learned anything.
    Rubio was not behind the ad—just stop it.
    The Daily Least–er, Beast—alleges that it was an ally of Rubio. We’ll wait to see if it’s actually proven. But we know you won’t wait.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  159. Rubio was not behind the ad

    What ad? I’m talking about the National Enquirer story.

    Breitbart confirmed that the story was shopped by a Rubio ally.

    So that’s two different sources, one of which is no fan of Trump.

    None of this is mentioned by Patterico.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  160. I have no doubt that Pat, being an honorable man, will correct the record.
    I’m just wondering when.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  161. There needs to be an alternative to Trump and Cruz. Both of them have weaknesses that probably will be insurmountable by the time election day rolls around in November.

    A lot of blame for that dilemma rests mainly on the high percentage of Americans who’ve long had a soft spot in their heart for, among other left-leaning politicians, horrific Hillary and the horrible person she hopes to succeed. That a malignancy like Hillary is still perceived as competitive enough at this late date to cast doubt about the viability of any of the possible Republican candidates running against her speaks volumes, including how debased too much of the electorate is.

    Some of the blame also falls squarely on all the squishes in the Republican Party itself. A remaining portion of the blame is due to purely visceral qualities of any politician that either help or hurt his or her likeability (See: behavior of people like Peggy Noonan back in 2008; See: higher favorability poll ratings for the current pro-Communist, US-hating occupant of the White House during his last year in office compared with that of his predecessor).

    Mark (e0a353)

  162. So no election. Just a decree from the party.

    The same way they nominated every candidate from Lincoln to Wilkie, for the most part. Binding delegates to primary results is a very recent phenomenon and frankly not very impressive, considering. I wonder if we would have had Dole and McCain any other way.

    Hey, I have an idea — let’s have binding plebiscites on all the issues and make out congresspeople toe the line. Then they can avoid all those hearings and boring fact-finding and just follow mechanically what the voters thought was cool.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  163. One thing you can’t call them is delegates. No public vote means they were not delegated.

    Sure they were. They were delegated by the people who work for the party year in and year out, manning the phones, stuffing the envelopes, walking the precincts, etc. It’s the way they do things in North Dakota. Don’t like it? Don’t live there.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  164. Subsequent to that we learn Rubio was behind the “Cruz cheats on his wife” story.

    No, we learn that someone said that Rubio’s people, MONTHS AGO might have been circulating a similar story. That does NOT mean that the story this month came from Rubio — if it ever did. Far from it when Trump’s running dog Roger Stone is clearly part of it.

    It is truly amazing how the conspiracy theorists and black helicopter loonies supporting Trump thing a rumor twice told is fact.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  165. speaking of sniveling cowards

    U.S. Hispanic Chamber Endorses Sen. John McCain for Re-Election

    happyfeet (831175)

  166. How many years have we played it the GOP’s way? Vote for whatever RINO they put up, or ‘conservative’ if we’re lucky and what has it brought? Obama and the continuing leftward slide into authoritarianism and bankruptcy with the destruction of our culture as a bonus. The GOP has used all its credit. Their promises are worth zero, they candidates are worth zero. Trump is a spanner in the works to break up the cozy system the ruling party has established for itself. If your thinking is limited to ‘well he isn’t conservative enough…’ then you are part of the problem. You are the very person voting for failure management and slow decline. That is the track record of your decisions.

    Mr Black (3efb66)

  167. Yeah, Black. (You don’t deserve the title “mister”.) Choose a Lying Leftist Democrat to be placed on the Republican ticket. That’ll stop the Leftward slide and correct for all those Democrats being elected before. Idiot.

    John Hitchcock (d7429a)

  168. the important thing is not to have no hillary cause she nasty

    Mr. Trump will have to stop her

    we all have to do our part to help it would be very unpleasant to have that nasty incontinent old woman in failmerica’s pitiful sleazy white house for four years

    happyfeet (831175)

  169. Answer the question, John. We’ve played by you and the GOP elite’s rules for 30 years. What has it gotten us? We even sent your idol Teddy the Liar to DC, and what did he accomplish? Are the borders guarded? Are illegal aliens deported, even the ones who commit crimes after arriving? Is Obamacare still the law of the land? Is the federal judiciary more conservative? No. And now you insist that we bow down and do what you order, or else. Sorry, but it is time we took out the trash that has infected our party for far too long.

    On a side note, for all his bluster and censoring and banning those who he accuses of bad behavior, Patterico seems to be just fine with the profanity-laced personal attacks offered non-stop by John Hitchcock. I suppose that is just another “value” that has fallen by the wayside, huh?

    prowlerguy (fa36d8)

  170. oh my goodness sleazy ted cruz – he’s trying to goldy sacky all the delegates!

    this is only possible when the corruption runs super deep in your stankparty

    Mr. Trump has his work cut out for him cleaning up after all these poopers

    happyfeet (831175)

  171. If it weren’t for misspelled cuss words I’d be silent as a monk for weeks at a time.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  172. “Sorry, but it is time we took out the trash that has infected our party for far too long.”

    And so it begins. First will be the hard labor camps set up in the north and then mass liquidation. God, I hate Mondays .

    Colonel Haiku (15b793)

  173. I know, Colonel. Democrats are taking out their “trash” (all opposition), and Republicans taking out their “trash” (intra-party opposition). Yeah, that will work.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  174. First will be the hard labor camps set up in the north and then mass liquidation.

    Now you’re just trying to cheer us up, Haiku.

    nk (dbc370)

  175. Well where did it come from, the maverick adultery meme came from weaver, the one about the huntress came from the nazgul, it’s curious how the lies are rarely sourced and the originator punished.

    narciso (1e413e)

  176. See, this is what I mean. HF snottily accuses Cruz of using influence (and money?) to influence individuals. I don’t think that is true…but he supports TRUMP?

    Trump has made his living doing precisely those things.

    So it’s bad when person “A” does it, and okay when person “B” does it?

    And I am frankly delighted to compare acts of corruption between Trump and Cruz.

    So either HF is mental or just posts drunk. Or (and I think this is the correct answer) he just wants the whole system to burn down.

    And it doesn’t matter, since there is no evidence that Trump can beat HRC. Right?

    All people have is that Trump “might” be able to.

    Why, Cruz “might” be able to fix the problems our country faces.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  177. we have to burn the corruption out

    goldy sacky values aren’t american values

    the people united will never be defeated!

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  178. where’s the evidence that sleazy ted can beat sleazy hillary?

    there is none!

    it’s a complete misnomer

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  179. The problem with Cruz is not philosophical but visceral. He has a rather high-pitched, nasally voice, and when a public figure needs as many appealing traits as possible to be an effective communicator, that is not an advantage. That could be one reason why he reportedly isn’t terribly popular among certain Republican insiders, assuming such people goes beyond those who aren’t just semi-conservatives (or so-called centrists) who prefer squishes.

    Of course, I’ve read that Abraham Lincoln had a voice that perhaps is similar to Cruz’s, and the most famous of Republicans also had a face that only a mother could love.

    The superficial traits of the Republican candidate wouldn’t be such a concern to me if the American electorate weren’t made up of so many nitwits who’ve given overly generous positive ratings to the leading Democrat candidate and the one she hopes to succeed.

    Mark (e0a353)

  180. #163 papertiger,

    You lied about Rubio when you said he was behind the rumors which ultimately resulted in the National Enquirer story. When in fact the Daily Least says it was an ally of Rubio not connected to his campaign. We don’t know if that’s even true. But facts and truth don’t interest you.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  181. Mark (183):
    Voice and looks might be a problem if a hypothetical candidate Cruz were running against a Jack Kennedy or even a Barak Obama. Running against Hillary, or even Bernie, his voice will be no more annoying than his opponent’s, his face no more repulsive, and his arguments (not to mention his willingness to argue instead of spewing stupid and obviously untrue slogans) a hell of a lot more convincing.

    Cruz seems to me the only candidate with a chance to reform and renew the Republican Party without destroying it, cutting off the – let’s say ‘powers’ to be polite – of the D.C. insiders who are happy to lose as long as they keep their cushy positions, while still winning the election and putting actual competent people who like to win in power. He’s the only one running who’s enough of an outsider to possibly win over the pissed-off outsiders from Trump, and enough of an insider to win over the anti-Trumper establishment types, too – fear of Hillary ought to help. It will be difficult, but it seems to me the only way any Republican – or any competent leader – is going to win this election.

    Something no one seems to be considering. The candidates will all be making speeches at the convention, and should be able to win or lose votes with them. Trump can refuse to debate Cruz now – something that ought to disqualify him among honest voters – and keep him out of the news, but Cruz will have his chance to make his case at the convention to the voters who count in winning the nomination (the delegates), as well as the voters outside the convention hall. Assuming, of course, the news media don’t reveal their blatant partisanship by cutting away from Cruz’s speech to show Trump blowing his nose or something.

    Dr. Weevil (d4d1d2)

  182. Sigh. Mr. Feet, we have been through this before. You are objectively wrong, and just got irritable when several of us pointed it out.

    I won’t repost the links.

    Go to Real Clear Politics yourself. Don’t be lazy and repeat slogans.

    I notice you also refuse to explain why MAYBE buying influence by Cruz is awful and CERTAINLY buying influence by Trump is okay.

    You act like Trump is some kind of outsider when he is the ultimate big government influence peddling insider.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiVwA19DZ6g

    His own words. Also notice that (other than HRC coming to his wedding) he never answered what he got for his money.

    But show me multiple polls showing Trump beating Hillary. Go ahead. Because you can’t.

    All you have are dreams about an orange toupee.

    You just want her to win. Be proud and admit it. You want everything to burn.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  183. Mr. Trump is like Lucy Mr. Jester

    he snatches the football!

    hah!

    poor ruling class Rs – stymied is what they are

    reduced to this seedy business of buying and selling corrupt delegates

    Sad!

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  184. happyfeet has let slip that he is from Texas and that his father was an evangelical preacher.
    Who else is like that, eh?
    And who else was from Texas?
    LBJ and Lee Atwater, that’s who.
    I’m seeing reverse psychology by a Cruz operative.
    By patently unfair attacks against Cruz, happyfeet is causing reaction and gaining sympathy for Cruz.
    It’s pretty obvious when you think about it.

    nk (dbc370)

  185. nonono dad was a lay minister in our church which is lutheran *not* evangelical

    he did readings and prayers and communion and such

    dad wasn’t a fan of the evangelicals he thought they were poopers – especially the weirdo non-denominational ones – but he had to get elected so he never did anything to antagonize them that i can ever remember

    he was super good friends with our local chick-fil-a people too

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  186. nk, you give the character far too much credit. I mean, look at the history.

    Notice he still doesn’t answer the questions. Because he can’t.

    He is happypyromaniac.

    But not in a doctrinaire, informed way. More of a slacker way.

    Can’t wait to see (speaking of footballs and Lucy) how he defends the next awful statement by Trump.

    nk, I was watching some videos of Trump from the late 80s. I’m not sure he is all there these days.

    He looks tired.

    That was for narciso, who will get it.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  187. How in the heck can anyone consider Cruz an “outsider”?
    He graduated from Princeton and Harvard.
    He clerked for William Rehnquist.
    In private practice, he worked for the NRA and John Boehner.
    He was on GW Bush’s campaign staff.
    Under GW Bush, he served as deputy AG and director of the FTC.
    He has been in the US Senate for four years.

    While all of those are fine resume points, it seems to be stretching it to call someone who has personally provided counsel to Boehner and served extensively under GWB to be called a “maverick” or an “outsider”.

    prowlerguy (fa36d8)

  188. “Outsider” is a politically expedient euphemism for “prick.” He pisses people off and nobody likes him? Must be an “outsider.”

    Leviticus (efada1)

  189. I’m not sure, though, how the RNC could free up delegates on the first ballot. That would require many delegates (including Texas’) to violate state law —

    I don’t see how such laws could possibly be constitutional.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  190. By patently unfair attacks against Cruz, happyfeet is causing reaction and gaining sympathy for Cruz.
    It’s pretty obvious when you think about it.

    nk (dbc370) — 4/4/2016 @ 8:03 am

    C’mon, nk! The only thing obvious about happyfeet is the insanity.

    Colonel Haiku (15b793)

  191. How many years have we played it the GOP’s way? Vote for whatever RINO they put up, or ‘conservative’ if we’re lucky and what has it brought?

    It has brought the GOP to the strongest position it has been in over a century, at least until Trump was sent in from Democrat Hell to ratf**k us but good.

    Our problems come from the Mobys like Trump, Kaus, Lou Dobbs and others, so concerned about us not being conservative and constitutional enough that they push a Democrat shill on us over a real deal like Cruz.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  192. Mr. Cruz is not the good choice Mr. Colonel

    he can’t win he has deficits that he can’t overcome

    the ick factor with him is just so high but it’s not just that

    he’s out of step with america in a big way

    i feel sad for him but he has to understand it’s just never gonna be his year

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  193. happyfeet and I go back a long way, Haiku.
    We were both deported from Saudi Arabia for being too good looking and irresistible to women.
    happyfeet is still sore about it.
    I was too, at first.
    But in retrospect, I realize that the religious police did us a favor.
    I had lost 20 lbs.
    It was disappear fast or disappear slow.

    nk (dbc370)

  194. oh my goodness sleazy ted cruz – he’s trying to goldy sacky all the delegates!

    That’s what losers say when winners use the rules to their advantage.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  195. 20 lbs. that’s awesome i’m converting to japanese for to lose weight

    they’re a thin people and for the most part they seem pretty happy

    i ordered bento boxes and some miso soup paste to get started

    also i grilled some cucumbers with a lil teriyaki sauce and sesame seeds, which is not something I would’ve done before i converted

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  196. Wait until the human Megalopyge opercularis puts an import tax on teriyaki sauce and engages in at sesame seed trade war. Then you won’t laugh.

    You will be eating what Trump wants you to eat.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  197. A guy was shot in the head not a hundred feet from me on Saturday night.
    I heard today he passed away in the hospital.
    You may have seen heard it on the news.
    I have a 2.5 lb pork roast in the oven with a couple of baked potatoes.

    nk (dbc370)

  198. my friend d heard about that i hate that for you ever since we had the armed robbery at my little liquor store I haven’t felt very good about the neighborhood

    hai hai sesame seed my people put in our rice a lot Mr. Jester you can do seaweed too or furikake – i ordered a variety pack of 8 furikake so that will be a next week thing

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  199. Is it true that Cruz “pisses people off”? Yes, he pisses off the go-along-get-along GOPesters in D.C. who willingly sell out conservative principles for power and position, and that’s a good thing (the pissing off, not the selling out). Is it true that “nobody likes him”? No, it is simply and obviously false. I like him, Beldar likes him, Kevin M likes him, Cruz Supporter (duh) likes him, and quite a lot of voters and delegates like him. Not for his looks or his voice, but for his principles. Trumpsters, Democrats, and GOPe shills just can’t help making ‘trumped up’ (heh) silly arguments to oppose Cruz.

    Dr. Weevil (8a6312)

  200. I found two more cases – but I don’t think it’s what I knew, because my impression was the case was decided in 1972.

    The law seems to be a bit up in the air as to what a party can do, and probably the suprem Court, or most of it, likes it that way.

    I was led to it by:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/26/us/justices-uphold-democrats-on-rules-to-pick-delegates.html

    And then I found this:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/26/us/wisconsin-politicians-dismayed-by-court-decision.html

    This is very topical since it concerns the Wisconsin primary. It may have changed the rules slightly, and I am not sure what the situation is right now. Perhaps party rules make the primaryresults binding.

    The Supreme Court cases are

    1) Cousins v. Wigoda 419 U.S. 477 (1975)

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/419/477.

    Maybe a better link: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/419/477.html

    This concerned the delegates elected from Chicago in the March, 1972, Illinois primary to the 1972 Democratic National Convention, except that this was decided in 1975. This seems to have been decided on the merits, with Justice Powell, concurring in part and dissenting in part, saying that while the convention could seat them, the delegates could be enjoined from purporting to represent the specific districts where they had lost the election. Rehnquist, Chief Justice Burger, and Stewart concurred in the result with Rehnquist writing an opinion. (Brennan wrote the opinion of the court.)

    And the 1981 case is:

    2) Democratic Party v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette 450 U.S. 107 (1981)

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/450/107.html

    Stewart wrote the opinion of the court. Powell, Blackmun and Rehnquist dissented. Powell wrote, in part:

    …If appellant National Party were an organization with a particular ideological orientation or political mission, perhaps this regulation would present a different question. 3 In such a case, the state law might well open the organization to participation by persons with incompatible beliefs and interfere with the associational rights of its founders.

    The Democratic Party, however, is not organized around the achievement of defined ideological goals….The Party does take positions [450 U.S. 107, 132] on public issues, but these positions vary from time to time, and there never has been a serious effort to establish for the Party a monolithic ideological identity by excluding all those with differing views. As a result, it is hard to see what the Democratic Party has to fear from an open primary plan. Wisconsin’s law may influence to some extent the outcome of a primary contest by allowing participation by voters who are unwilling to affiliate with the Party publicly. It is unlikely, however, that this influence will produce a delegation with preferences that differ from those represented by a substantial number of delegates from other parts of the country. Moreover, it seems reasonable to conclude that, insofar as the major parties do have ideological identities, an open primary merely allows relatively independent voters to cast their lot with the party that speaks to their present concerns. 5 [450 U.S. 107, 133] By attracting participation by relatively independent-minded voters, the Wisconsin plan arguably may enlarge the support for a party at the general election.

    It is significant that the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, which represents those citizens of Wisconsin willing to take part publicly in Party affairs, is here defending the state law…

    Sammy Finkelman (984faa)

  201. Weevil, his looks and voice are surface to be sure, and he has little enough competition in looks or voice; but when he voluntarily presents himself as a schlub, it’s also a clue that he’s inadequate in some respects to the demands and importance of the position he seeks. Reagan made a study of looking unstudied – both his charm and appearance were as thought out as George Washington’s rules a gentleman’s conduct. Cruz has a hard sell on some of his principles, closer to my own than those of any other candidate, and poor salesmanship is a flw indeed. And frankly some His “fair tax” ideas are awful, his associations creepy, and some of the finessing of his father and wifes issues is supremely odd and will be attacked and attacked again.

    Back kto surface: He knew he was running for office, so he shouldn’t look like a puffy pale Josh Duggar doughboy around the edges. He should hit the gym, stand up straight, get a damn tailor and a wardrobe-carer.

    If Trumps horror show sucked all the oxygen out of the cabin,his own performance is partly to blame.

    SarahW (67599f)

  202. flw= flaw

    SarahW (67599f)

  203. *tov 😀

    No need to correct. Transliteration is more a matter of taste than anything else.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  204. (and what is it with Gateway Pundit? Does anyone know where his marbles are?)

    When did he ever have any? He claimed to have reliable inside sources for his bull***t claim that Darren Wilson had an “orbital blowout fracture to the eye socket”. His sources were probably as invented as the injury.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  205. The takeaway from this thread ought to be #73, Beldar’s long comment about Intellectual Property law being used to prevent sore-loser 3rd Party challenges. IF his supposition is correct — that the RNC has lawyers with at least 3 digit IQs — anyone signing an access agreement for the RNC database has pretty much given up all rights to run an independent campaign.

    That does not mean that someone not involved as yet in 2016 cannot do so (e.g. Romney challenging a Trump nomination) but anyone else is probably going to be hit with injunctions that they’ve already waived their defenses to.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  206. You have to expect to catch some flack when a self appointed few claiming to represent a State don’t even trouble themselves to pay lip service to the electorate.

    WTH are you talking about? They are the Republican Party of North Dakota. Why should they pay service to anyone else?

    One thing you can’t call them is delegates. No public vote means they were not delegated.

    Are you speaking some bizarre language that happens to have some words with an uncanny resemblance to English words that mean something completely different? They are delegates. They were delegated by the N Dakota Republican Party, which they are to represent at the national convention. When a local club, let’s say the Masons, sends a delegate to a state convention, do they allow anyone off the street to choose whom they will send?! Of course not. The delegate represents the club, so it’s up to the club members to choose him or her. Delegates to the national Republican convention represent the state parties, so if a state party has the good sense to choose its own delegates, rather than, um, delegating that task to every Tom Dick and Harry off the street, good on it.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  207. Finally, I think Cruz will be in a big bind because, whatever happens, he will not overcome Trump’s delegate lead and he has always said the delegate leader should get nomination.

    When has he said such a stupid and false thing?

    Milhouse (87c499)

  208. I don’t see how such laws could possibly be constitutional.

    You would argue 1st Amendment? In any event the police are not going to descend and haul them off the floor if the RNC allows the vote. Maybe they have to answer to a judge back home. So be it. Thoreau would have know what to say about that.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  209. It does not have to be so crass. “Equity sees that as done what ought to be done.” It’s an adjunct to a mandatory injunction. “You were sent here to vote for X, we’re putting you down for X, and you can yell “Y” till you’re blue in the face, your vote on the tally is for X.”

    nk (dbc370)

  210. When has he said such a stupid and false thing?

    Google seems unaware of it. TRUMP has said it, but he would (and will disavow it if he falls behind).

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  211. It does not have to be so crass. “Equity sees that as done what ought to be done.” It’s an adjunct to a mandatory injunction. “You were sent here to vote for X, we’re putting you down for X, and you can yell “Y” till you’re blue in the face, your vote on the tally is for X.”

    Well, it gets messy actually, since in some cases “delegates” do not actually vote on the first ballot under some state rules, but are allocated by some arcane formula as candidates drop out, and the state’s tally is set in advance.

    In other states individuals are assigned as “Cruz” or “Trump” or “Rubio” delegates and have some freedom. Since votes for Rubio and Kasich won’t even be counted (except as votes when computing a majority, I think) those delegates may well have a decision to make. Are they bound to make an invalid vote under the rules?

    And in the last case, where a delegate is “faithless” I expect that the vote is taken as it is cast. McCloskey got votes in 1972.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  212. We even sent your idol Teddy the Liar to DC, and what did he accomplish?

    As much as any one senator can accomplish.

    Are the borders guarded? Are illegal aliens deported, even the ones who commit crimes after arriving? Is Obamacare still the law of the land? Is the federal judiciary more conservative?

    In what universe is a senator able to do any of that? In what universe is a majority in both houses able to do any of that? Congress cannot guard anything, deport anyone, repeal a law that the president likes, or choose judges. Certainly one senator can’t do any of those things.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  213. Oh, I only meant what a judge might order as opposed to locking the guy up unless he voted the way he was supposed to. I think it would be ridiculous, beyond irony, by the way, for politicians not to be able to work this out “politically” and have to resort to the courts.

    nk (dbc370)

  214. Running against Hillary, or even Bernie, his voice will be no more annoying than his opponent’s, his face no more repulsive, and his arguments (not to mention his willingness to argue instead of spewing stupid and obviously untrue slogans) a hell of a lot more convincing.

    Dr Weevil, because people of the right don’t get as much benefit of the doubt from a fairly large portion of the public, Ted Cruz (or any other Republican nominee) has to be not just as good (superficially and otherwise) as a horrific Hillary or a Bernie the Communist, he has to be better.

    I would never have been that cynical over 8 years ago, but this era of “Goddamn America,” best symbolized by the opinion poll ratings of the godawful things (humans and otherwise) in the Democrat Party, make me realize that we can sink much further as a society than I previously thought possible—-that and also witnessing the never-ending downward trajectory of nations like Venezuela, Mexico or France, etc.

    Mark (e0a353)

  215. I don’t see how such laws could possibly be constitutional

    .

    You would argue 1st Amendment?

    Absolutely. States simply cannot dictate how any person shall vote in any forum, nor can they dictate how any political party shall choose its candidates for any office.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  216. Reagan made a study of looking unstudied – both his charm and appearance were as thought out as George Washington’s rules a gentleman’s conduct.

    Some of that was also due to DNA or genetics.

    Mother Nature hasn’t been quite as kind to Cruz as she was to Reagan. However, if the US weren’t coming down with with an increasingly serious case of Euro-sclerosis (ie, mindless, feckless liberalism, decade after decade) or Central/South-American Disease (ie, decrepit, desperate socialism, generation after generation), such an admittedly superficial issue wouldn’t be quite as pressing to me.

    Mark (e0a353)

  217. It does not have to be so crass. “Equity sees that as done what ought to be done.” It’s an adjunct to a mandatory injunction. “You were sent here to vote for X, we’re putting you down for X, and you can yell “Y” till you’re blue in the face, your vote on the tally is for X.”

    The party can do that. The state can’t tell the party to do it, or for that matter not to do it.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  218. It used to be that state delegations imposed rules on individual members, like the “unit rule” where if 21 out of 40 delegates were for X, they could force all votes to be cast for X. The RNC rules don’t allow that any more. But unless there are allocated votes, like there would be from Kentucky for released delegates (if any), individual delegates have only their conscience to guide them.

    Having served as a delegate in representative assemblies, I know that the home groups ALWAYS want to instruct their delegates how to vote on certain issues, and I also know why this is almost always a HORRIBLE idea. The delegates need to be able to listen, reason, discuss and decide. If you don’t trust them to do that, send someone else.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  219. all of the other reindeers used to laugh and call Mr. Trump names

    but he exposed them for the sick corrupt establishment trash they are

    Santa was so happy

    happyfeet (831175)

  220. Well, that’s only true if one type of sick corrupt establishment trash accuses others of being sick corrupt establishment trash.

    Though Trump does have a very shiny spray tan (with all his money, you would think he would get a better dye job). You have that going for you, pyrofeet.

    Simon Jester (c1ab9a)

  221. Mr happyfeet, I think the reason the other reindeer used to laugh and call Donnie names is because he used to laugh and call them names as well as the fact that Donnie used to hoard all the toys that the elves made. And the reason Santa was happy to have Donnie is because Donnie’s Orange Toupee glowed which enabled them to see during tough blizzards on Christmas Eve.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  222. In other news, fingers crossed about Wisconsin.

    Simon Jester (c1ab9a)

  223. “The party can do that. The state can’t tell the party to do it, or for that matter not to do it.”

    Milhouse (87c499) — 4/4/2016 @ 9:56 pm

    Now, get back in teh breadline, comrade…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  224. — What do you call a woman who likes men with small penises?
    — Mrs. Trump.

    nk (dbc370)

  225. I would normally say that ridicule is kryptonite to Trump, nk, but he has always been a joke.

    I think that this explains a lot of the Trump Phenomenon.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433554/donald-trump-art-seduction

    Your mileage may vary.

    Simon Jester (c1ab9a)

  226. How low can you go?

    ropelight (fd4e8d)

  227. “fingers crossed about Wisconsin”

    Walker doesn’t want Kloppenburg stinking up the court any more than any more than he wants Trump picking up delegates. There will not be much luck involved in the outcome.

    Rick Ballard (f28e3d)

  228. I think Trump speaks to angry, frustrated people who just want to upend the chess board. Burn it down!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  229. I think Trump speaks to his brain. He has “a very good brain”.
    And to his hair. He has “very nice hair”.
    And to his penis. He’s proud of his penis. So much that he talked about its size during a Presidential debate.

    nk (dbc370)

  230. I hope Mr. Trump is victorious in Wisconsin but I’m fearful cause of how weird Minnesota was

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  231. Trump speaks to people who want to believe, people who believe The Truth is Out There and now they’ve finally found it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  232. Mr. Trump and me

    we’re gonna be

    big stars

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  233. mete and dole
    Unequal laws unto a savage race,
    That hoard, and sleep, and feed

    Yes, it’s out of context, from a very different context, but ain’t it the truth?

    nk (dbc370)

  234. crucial crucial

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  235. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION:
    What is Navy policy for the proper wear of the Brown Aviation Leather Flight Jacket?

    U.S. Navy Uniform Regulations, Chapter Six, Section 8, Article 6803.2.b.(2):

    “Close zipper at least 3/4 of the way when worn.”

    This policy applies when the jacket is worn inside or outside.

    For detailed information on management and control of the leather flight jackets review OPNAVINST 10126.4C.

    nk (dbc370)

  236. Trump speaks to people who want to be winners because they are so very tired of being losers.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  237. Re: 238, nk, of course there is regulation on how to wear a uniform, as funny as the details seem.

    What I loved was when the uniforms change based upon the whim of the Commanding General’s wife:

    In the 60’s the USAF CG’s wife decided she did not like seeing white t-shirt collars – so the entire USAF was required to go to v-neck t shirts. The next CG’s wife hated chest hair, back came the crew neck t-shirts. (I was a dependent at a SAC base and witnessed this, I guess my dad was lucky the General did not require shaving chest hair instead.)

    Steve Malynn (b5f891)

  238. Trump has a track record of winning to point to. He has won several times in bankruptcy court, a couple times in divorce court, and in each of the Drudge Polls following the primary debates. He even won life’s lottery when Daddy Trump bequeathed him zillions of dollars. He’s a proven winner.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  239. Speaking of Navy regulations, they’re going to begin allowing visible neck tattoos. One Naval Officer actually commented that the Navy wants to make sure they’re not losing out on the best and brightest recruits who might not otherwise get in due to the long-standing ban against visible neck tattoos.

    Facepalm.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  240. they’re going to begin allowing visible neck tattoos

    i’m not happy with this at all

    trashy trashy trashy

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  241. Following is an excerpt from Maria Vultaggio’s 4/4/16 article in International Business Times

    Ted Cruz Affair Rumors Circle After National Enquirer Claims Madam’s Black Book Proves Cheating Scandal Is Real

    No matter how many times Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz refutes claims he cheated on his wife, Heidi, the National Enquirer seems determined to prove the White House candidate is a philanderer. The Texas senator, however, has vehemently denied the allegations, saying that is was “garbage” fabricated by Republican front-runner Donald Trump’s campaign.

    When Deborah Palfrey, a Washington, D.C., madam, mysteriously died, she supposedly left behind a “black book” that implicates Cruz, according to National Enquirer. There are 15,000 clients named in the book, and Cruz is apparently one of them, according to the publication. The madam’s clients would pay $300 per hour for time with one of her women.

    Palfrey’s lawyer, Montgomery Blair Sibley, wants to release the names and numbers in the book because the information is important for “voters [to know] before they cast their ballot.”

    “If Montgomery Sibley has what he says he has, it has to be Cruz,” investigator Wayne Madsen…

    ropelight (fd4e8d)

  242. oh my goodness if Ted’s been making sexy on not-Heidis we have a moral conundrum that we have to resolve

    let me know if I can help

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  243. On the other hand, if we are going to smear people, here is Trump as everyone’s drunk neighbor. It works really well.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRly-0wwl_g

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  244. And then there is this. Really.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xaLlcc6vt8

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  245. Never Touch Anything That Looks Like Donald Trump’s Hair

    we grew up around some really wicked caterpillars but they tended to be more on the green/white side

    but yeah the sting was really terrible even if if just slightly brushed you

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  246. I want to know how Melania supported herself in New York City between the time she moved there in 1996 and the time she got her green card in 2001.

    nk (dbc370)

  247. One Naval Officer actually commented that the Navy wants to make sure they’re not losing out on the best and brightest recruits who might not otherwise get in due to the long-standing ban against visible neck tattoos.

    Facepalm.

    Yes, fellow Cruz Supporter because as we all know the “best and the brightest” are easily identified by their neck tattoos as proved by the ink on skinheads, Nazi’s, Black Panthers and our friends in the SDS. When you toss in the “women” with hairy armpits and legs and the loose loafer crowd the military is becoming as much a freak show as downtown LA. Cause as we all know lesbians, gays and tattooed morons make the very best military. Oh, and don’t forget the diversity of the Nidal Hasan types. Allahu Akbar!

    Imam Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6)

  248. 249.I want to know how Melania supported herself in New York City between the time she moved there in 1996 and the time she got her green card in 2001.

    You’d need to ask Eliot Spitzer.

    Imam Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6)

  249. Hoagie, ya gotta way wid woads.

    ropelight (fd4e8d)

  250. nk,

    Are you suggesting woman does not live by soft porn alone?

    Rick Ballard (f28e3d)

  251. This is from SNL this past Saturday. CNN anchorette interviewing Trumpette. Lots and lots of good insights into Trump supporters. Funny too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ve5CFGYFL4

    nk (dbc370)

  252. The National Enquirer catches Ted Cruz with his pants down and his supporters immediately begin attacking Donald Trump’s wife. Hypocrisy much?

    ropelight (fd4e8d)

  253. Keep on touting the lies, rope.

    Steve Malynn (b5f891)

  254. The National Enquirer has not caught anything, except possibly unmentionables diseases from the cesspool they swim in. It’s all fantasy generated by Trump shills. And if we’re going to talk about consorting with “strange women”, why not talk about the one who wants to take up residency in the White House? Aren’t you curious about Melania’s immigration status between 1996 and 2001 at least? What with illegals, and walls, and work permits, and everything?

    nk (dbc370)

  255. ropelight, please don’t lecture us about truth and facts.
    After all, you actually believe the Bushes and the Hinckleys conspired to have John Hinckley Jr assassinate President Reagan.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  256. — my apologies for the brief interruption —

    ISIS launched another chemical attack last month. They just don’t seem to have a shortage of mustard gas.

    Good thing they could never do that here. Obama is on the case.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/deadly-gas-attack-syria-army-state-media-092754189.html

    This is not good.

    Pons Asinorum (49e2e8)

  257. Hey, nk, I worry that this might happen if someone touches that colony of Megalopyge opercularis on top of Trumps cranium.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAjNLo5Ui-E

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  258. Sugardaddy Longlegs, Simon?

    nk (dbc370)

  259. Ropelight -‘your willingness to lie and smear and then try to play the victim is just precious. Couple that with all your inane conspiracy theories, and you are a perfect Trump toadie.

    JD (f897a0)

  260. “This is from SNL this past Saturday. CNN anchorette interviewing Trumpette. Lots and lots of good insights into Trump supporters. Funny too.”

    SNL hasn’t been funny since ’99. They are a part of what they used to lampoon/rail against.

    Colonel Haiku (42c195)

  261. He even won life’s lottery when Daddy Trump bequeathed him zillions of dollars.

    After he was already a billionaire, of course.

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  262. ropelight: The so-called evidence about Cruz are phone numbers on the DC Madam’s phone bill to a Quality Inn and a Courtyard in DC and to an Orlando FL cell phone. Given the origin of the cell phone, that is more likely to be Trump’s numberthan Cruz’s, and it’s almost certainly neither one. It’s not proof of anything except the Madam had a cell phone.

    DRJ (15874d)

  263. Is he a billionaire, Old Reader? He bases his net worth on his feelings but that’s not standard accounting practices, is it?

    DRJ (15874d)

  264. Nah DRJ. I’m sure youre right. He’s broke. We should probably set up a gofundme button so Donald can make ends meet.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  265. If it weren’t for the pointing and the neener neeners, we would already have one.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  266. His presidential campaign is his newest way to make ends meet.

    DRJ (15874d)

  267. Why do you believe Trump is a billionaire when he admitted under oath that his net worth is based on how he feels? Are you calling him a liar?

    DRJ (15874d)

  268. I think he has more money than he can count. Which is to say if he took the time to count it he wouldn’t have time for anything else.

    So it really does depend on how he feels. Feel like counting today, Don?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  269. The IRS frowns on people like that. No wonder he won’t release his tax returns.

    DRJ (15874d)

  270. I doubt they would be frowning. Lois Lerner is the only IRS person I know about.
    It’s assured she would be as giddy as a school girl to audit Trump.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  271. When Deborah Palfrey, a Washington, D.C., madam, mysteriously died, she supposedly left behind a “black book” that implicates Cruz

    She died in 2008. Cruz became a Senator in 2013. How effing gullible are people these days?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  272. Taxpayers who enjoy misleading the IRS? That’s not my idea of a good conservative citizen, let alone a good conservative President.

    DRJ (15874d)

  273. #274,Kevin, Ted Cruz has a long and distinguished association with Washington DC. He clerked for Chief Justice Rhenquist right out of law school. He was the Director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission, an Associate Deputy Attorney General at the United States Department of Justice, and domestic policy adviser to George W. Bush’s presidential campaign.

    So, being elected a Senator from Texas in 2013 hardly places him outside the sphere of possible clients at Ms Palfrey’s pleasure house. How gullible are you?

    ropelight (fd4e8d)

  274. Ropelight and Perry sitting in a tree ….

    JD (f897a0)

  275. “[Palfrey] died in 2008. Cruz became a Senator in 2013. How effing gullible are people these days?”

    – Kevin M

    IIRC, Cruz was at the FTC (smack dab in the dirty center of things) from 1999 to 2003. He wasn’t married until 2001.

    It’s not impossible that he was a client of Palfrey’s. Of course, there’s absolutely no *evidence* that he was a client of Palfrey’s, but Trumpkins will latch onto any rumor that sets their little hearts a-flutter.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  276. Correction: Cruz was with the Bush Admin in D.C. until 2003 (at both the AG’s office and the FTC).

    Leviticus (efada1)

  277. OK, I guess it is possible. In Trumpworld, that makes it true, of course. I hear that Hillary has promised to spill the beans on Area 51 — I guess she’s already pandering to the Trump voters.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  278. But wait, are you saying that those 5 women that the National Enquirer said were sleeping with Cruz were hookers for this madam? They would have to be if this is evidence for the N.E. story. I bet they deny it.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  279. If they had “real” beans to spill on Cruz, they’d spill them. No other news agency has picked up this story. If they had “real” beans to spill, they wouldn’t just talk about spilling the beans. Donnie Trump is always claiming to have secret info on people.

    Megyn Kelly says she’s gotten death threats since her debate run-in with The Mr Donald.
    And look at what Roger Stone said today about how if there’s an effort to get delegates to switch to someone else in Cleveland, then the Trump campaign will publicly publish the hotel room numbers of those delegates so that people can harrass them.
    This is Alinskyite intimidation thuggery.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  280. rope light and papertiger,

    I know you think Trump will try his best to keep his promises but if he can’t, who will you blame?

    DRJ (15874d)

  281. Now, Roger Stone does look like a guy you call the police on if you see him near a playground.

    nk (dbc370)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1931 secs.